# 828 qualified as of July 28 for Master National



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Just got an issue of Retriever Results via email. They report as of last weekend, 828 dogs have qualified for this year's Master National. That is a mind-blowing number. 

Helen


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

Wow. Of course not all of them will attend, but isn't it amazing that so many dogs are able to meet the requirements?

Wonder what percentage of them are with pros vs. with their owners.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Pam Spears said:


> Wow. Of course not all of them will attend, but isn't it amazing that so many dogs are able to meet the requirements?
> 
> Wonder what percentage of them are with pros vs. with their owners.


Go to the Master National site . It has a breakdown for years 2010-11-12. 

Now we can start the rant that the Master National is corrupt, AKC is bad ,it's all about money etc. The Master National board understands the problem. It is the Pros influence and their power over the clubs by the threat of lost revenue. The answer is limit a handler to 8-10 dogs. Not going to happen so the best alternative is a Amateur/ Pro series like FT . Let the rant begin. White or Red.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I did not post to encourage rants. I just posted the current number as of last weekend. When is the deadline to qualify? Tomorrow?

The number of qualifiers has grown substantially since 2010. The number of dogs handled by pros has grown substantially. The MN Board came up with a solution, but it was rejected. The folks who have pros are not going to vote to limit a handler to 8-10 dogs. Raising the entry fee since 2010 has not deterred folks from entering. I don't think there are "acceptable" solutions that will curtail the numbers who qualify. Entries in the MH stake are high; when even 50% pass, the 50% is a high number of dogs passing.

As has been said, not all 828 will enter this year. But it will be a high number and the folks putting on the Master National are going to need all the help they can get.
The thing is .... there are few locations with grounds that can put on a Master National with an entry around 700. There are few single clubs who can find enough workers to host such an entry.

Helen


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Any time anyone says anything about the Master Nationals people go crazy. I don't think their is the hottest issue in the retriever world right now. With that said here is my little bit of gas to the fire. 

A MNH is the new MH because a MH doesn't mean that much any more. How much can a title mean if there are 1500-2000 dogs right now walking around with it. I have seen a lot of bad dogs get a MH just through determination of their owners. They need to do a % pass or make tests harder (I know people freak out about that but the breed is getting better, techniques have improved as have the tools we use). Or maybe add a limited stake to hunt tests that are harder then master tests. I don't think the MN is the problem it is that 828 dogs should be able to qualify.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I thought I had it down somewhere but I can't find it. Was there not 900 plus qualifies last year with around 700 entered? Wojo gave insight to some interesting stats that I just skimmed over.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Helen My comments were not directed at you ,just sayin that the MN critics will jump at any chance to slam the MN. 
Using last year as an example I did an analysis that 700 dogs and 3 flights would take 11-12 days to complete . Good bye amateur. I'm retired ,have my own training facilities so I don't care. This will become a Pro events just like all the other national programs. Good bye amateur.


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

Beginning in 2010, they started offing the MNH title - doesn't that make (entice!?) people want to attend as many as they can? While their dog is in their prime? People would need to go out of their own region to get this title, since every 4 years makes for at least a 10yr old dog for the 3rd attempt. (2, 6 & 10 yrs)

In 2010, I was astonished at how many came from the East Coast to California. (Then I found out why by the end of the first day)
The increased numbers qualified to enter and that HAVE entered in the years since have attested to this carrot the MN club has dangled, eh?

Debbie


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Nate_C said:


> Any time anyone says anything about the Master Nationals people go crazy. I don't think their is the hottest issue in the retriever world right now. With that said here is my little bit of gas to the fire.
> 
> A MNH is the new MH because a MH doesn't mean that much any more. How much can a title mean if there are 1500-2000 dogs right now walking around with it. I have seen a lot of bad dogs get a MH just through determination of their owners. They need to do a % pass or make tests harder (I know people freak out about that but the breed is getting better, techniques have improved as have the tools we use). Or maybe add a limited stake to hunt tests that are harder then master tests. I don't think the MN is the problem it is that 828 dogs should be able to qualify.


I don't see what the big deal is. MH is a designation given to a dog capable of a certain level of work. If folks are concerned about finding dogs who are the best of the best, there is another game they are welcome to play. I don't see any sense in trying to make hunt tests mini field trials. Talking from a perspective of almost zero HT experience.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Last year approx 78% that qualified actually entered. If that percentage carries over approx 650 will enter.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

If that is the number entered and there are 3 flights ,then expect to spent 2 weeks in Kan. Oh Boy!!!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Some statistics from the MNRC website comparing years 2010-1012 show the trend:

2010 dogs entered 346. Pro handled 51.2%. Amateur handled 48.8%. The trial was held at the grounds in Corning, CA -- will be at the same grounds in 2014.
2011 dogs entered 569. Pro handled 59.2%. Amateur handled 40.6%.
2012 dogs entered 690. Pro handled 63.9%. Amateur handled 36.1%.

In 2012 there were 690 entries. A few dogs scratched. There were 4 flights with an average of 172-173 dogs per flight. (Some less, some more.) I don't know how long it took to get the first series done with over 170 dogs. I don't know how many got dropped nor how many started in series 2... series 3... series 4 etc. As I understood the explanation, the rationale behind the MNRC Board suggesting to change the MN qualifications was... too many young dogs had qualified, were entered which boosted up the numbers in the early series, then due to youth, inexperience, got dropped. (It is an endurance contest of sorts.) I can understand their rationale to make it more difficult to qualify to run a Master National.

If there are 650 entries, they will have to have 4 flights this year as they did last year. 

It is what it now is. The statistics tell us the trend for which not many can see a solution that folks will accept.


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

Nate new to the game and after two senior passes on two attempts the quality of dogs I have seen pass is a joke. I am not hear to tell anyone that my dog is the best or the next NFC but when I blow the whistle she sits and sits now! I don't accept second best in training nor would I accept it in the hunt test. I hear many saying at the hunt test, "well we only get to train on weekends and they are trying" What the heck is this? Pass because you try??? Why not just hand out the ribbons with the entry??

At a senior level the dog should sit when told to and take casts as they they are given. They also should be able to do a double reasonably well. They should not be able or expected to hold a line as long and well as a Master's level but jezzz what I have seen pass makes me want to only do field trials. You are right, as I seen MH behind some of these dogs it means next to nothing to me. I am not saying all dog work I have seen at the Master's level has been bad but not nearly what I thought this game would demand and expect. I Guess I will just concentrate on getting QAA because this has meaning and respect to me. 

I also think the judges they use now are more interested in the pass rate. Here's why: If you are a judge with high standards, you demand the dog sit when commanded, have very few to no cast refusal, and take a good line. You pass only the dogs who meet this standard. Now guess what, the clubs no longer want you as a judge because those who would never pass a test such as this will not enter and pay the club entry fees!

As long as I am talking, what is with these dogs who walk so slow doing the test, no drive, no speed, also referred as (hogs) but the P word, heck doesn't enthusiasm, drive count in these test?? 

Just MHO, I am a hound guy, ran bear dogs for years and aI just don't accept nothing but the best out of my dogs, the commands be it sit, over, back are not suggestions, that are commands.


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

Buzz said:


> I don't see what the big deal is. MH is a designation given to a dog capable of a certain level of work. If folks are concerned about finding dogs who are the best of the best, there is another game they are welcome to play. I don't see any sense in trying to make hunt tests mini field trials. Talking from a perspective of almost zero HT experience.


This is why I will only buy a puppy from a titled FC, AFC, or QAA behind them. The "standard" is what a judge gives out. I thus far in the game both playing and watching have not seen the standard held at the test. The failure rate would be so much higher if the standard was enforced. I do want the best of the best and you are probably right the trial game may be more my style, I know if I have QAA behind the name I earned something.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Backwater said:


> Nate new to the game and after two senior passes on two attempts the quality of dogs I have seen pass is a joke. I am not hear to tell anyone that my dog is the best or the next NFC but when I blow the whistle she sits and sits now! I don't accept second best in training nor would I accept it in the hunt test. I hear many saying at the hunt test, "well we only get to train on weekends and they are trying" What the heck is this? Pass because you try??? Why not just hand out the ribbons with the entry??
> 
> At a senior level the dog should sit when told to and take casts as they they are given. They also should be able to do a double reasonably well. They should not be able or expected to hold a line as long and well as a Master's level but jezzz what I have seen pass makes me want to only do field trials. You are right, as I seen MH behind some of these dogs it means next to nothing to me. I am not saying all dog work I have seen at the Master's level has been bad but not nearly what I thought this game would demand and expect. I Guess I will just concentrate on getting QAA because this has meaning and respect to me.
> 
> ...


How does one even attempt to respond to an expert statement such as this?


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

Well maybe this is just plain crazy but what if they just held two events. 1 held in 1 of the western zones and 1 held in 1 of the eastern zones. Less traveling for everyone. More opportunity for everyone. a 1000 dogs could qualify and it would be no big deal. It would allow room for growth of the sport without having to make it more difficult or raising the standards which would deter growth of the sport.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> How does one even attempt to respond to an expert statement such as this?


An EXCELLENT question, Corey. While I agree that one should demand excellence in training, I would love for this guy to enter the test I am judging in September so he could show me how his dog obeys every command perfectly.-Paul


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Corey
Even better by the third read,

I'm a big fan of the Master National. Not one person I know predicted the popularity of the Master National. So we have a volume issue that will work out over time. I know the committee has proposed solutions that AKC has rejected. OK, lets continue to debated the volume issue and from that maybe a solution will emerge. But as long as the host club has the capacity then what's the problem.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

This is a person with just two senior legs under their belt... just can't wait 'till they run a few masters to hear more about "HIS" standard.


john


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

wojo said:


> But as long as the host club has the capacity then what's the problem.


That is sort of the crux of it. Everyone seems to agree that it is tougher and tougher on host clubs and we may end up with a situation where nobody wants to host it. Then something serious will have to happen. Until that actually happens, though, I am not sure they could get a rule change to limit entries voted through. You may just have to smack folks in the face with no MN one year.

I don't know for sure, but I believe the folks I have talked to who think hosting it is not worth it or even feasible if entries continue to grow. In my opinion the change they proposed last time was pretty bogus--it wasn't even clear it would reduce entries very much if at all. I am not sure what the answer is but I can say that the only way I would enter one of my dogs in the MN was if I put it on a pro's truck. I haven't been to one in forever, but it sounds like just a huge grind these days. No fun at all, so if I cared about the MN pass, I would just find a pro going with an extra hole and pay. It would be cheaper and a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Buzz said:


> I don't see what the big deal is. MH is a designation given to a dog capable of a certain level of work. If folks are concerned about finding dogs who are the best of the best, there is another game they are welcome to play. I don't see any sense in trying to make hunt tests mini field trials. Talking from a perspective of almost zero HT experience.


My point is that the standard is getting two low. It isn't the best of the best but a MH should denote a high standard. People always say we don't want to make them into mini Field Trials. I agree, go the opposite direction. Don't just increase the length of marks, introduce more hunting elements. Make a remote sit a requirement. In that run of the mill water triple, make it a quad by throwing a splash down breaking bird right in front of the dog that will test the dogs steadiness and make the other marks a bit harder to remember. Use layout blinds. Have honors be for all the birds not just the first one.......ect... Also increase the standard around control. Don't go to HRC Grand levels but a step or two in that direction I think would help. It would lift up the value of a MH title. I don't think it would stop many people from actually getting a MH title if they were really focused but it would make it take longer. Their would be 828 dogs it would be more like 600, then 500 or so would end up at mater nationals.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

I read some of these threads in awe! The knowledge and depth of understanding of the topic is simply amazing. 
While I do believe you have the right to speak I wonder were the authority comes from? The thread started with a statement that quickly went to the rights and wrongs of the sport along with suggested improvements to the MNRC. 

I am just curious if before one hits the keyboard it is considered , especially on this topic , have I qualified a dog for the event, have I attended , has my team recieved the ribbon and plate at the end, have you saved and traveled out of your zone for the event? If one cannot answer these questions in a positive way then likely you have little to no authority on the subject. 
Realizing some of the threads are designed to stir the pot, some delight on poking the bear however all that makes up the diversity of the sport. And it is the diversity I like, it would be a sad state of affairs if all the tests were the same, all judges alike and the wind came from the same direction all the time. 
The MNRC does a good job, not prefect but the effort is there. If you can do better stand up and say let me help as I believe there is room. 
Our authority comes from attending 10 events, being amateurs, having 13 finishes and being involved. 
By the way while we have the entry debate our neighbors to the North have 27 entered for the National Master. 
Just my 2 cents for what it is worth 
Dave Kress


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> Last year approx 78% that qualified actually entered. If that percentage carries over approx 650 will enter.


The attendance rate has been approximately 78% of qualified since 2010. With that said, yes, it looks like there will be about 650 this year in attendance. Last year they had 908 qualified and 712 entered. 

With the MH limits that clubs can now use, it appears that it did limit the number of entries, even though that rule was only in place for the last 4 months of the qualifying year. I wonder what the affect will be next year, when there is a full year of limiting entries?


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

helencalif said:


> The number of qualifiers has grown substantially since 2010. The number of dogs handled by pros has grown substantially. The MN Board came up with a solution, but it was rejected. The folks who have pros are not going to vote to limit a handler to 8-10 dogs. Raising the entry fee since 2010 has not deterred folks from entering.
> Helen


The problem is not the Pros (at least in my opinion). The MN did a disservice to everyone to try and paint the picture in a Pro vs Am argument. How many people can afford to take 10+ days of vacation a year, all at one time, just to travel, train, run, travel to the MN, no matter what location is it? Not too many. As a result, the NEW MNH title that is awarded by the AKC has caused this new rush to obtain passes at the MN. And since someone has to pass 3 MN, that means increased numbers in attendance. 

Someone said that no one could foresee this increase? How in the world could they not foresee it? Add new AKC title for multiple passes, and they will come. It did exactly what they wanted.

I really would like to see the statistics of attendance prior to 2010, when the MNH was created? I have requested this information from the MN for the years of 2005 through 2009 prior to the vote, so that our club would have been able to make a true informed decision, but never received it. I have no basis for this assumption, but I would guess that the Pro vs Am rate for those years prior to 2010 would be fairly close to what we saw in 2010-2012.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Backwater said:


> Nate new to the game and after two senior passes on two attempts the quality of dogs I have seen pass is a joke. I am not hear to tell anyone that my dog is the best or the next NFC but when I blow the whistle she sits and sits now! I don't accept second best in training nor would I accept it in the hunt test. I hear many saying at the hunt test, "well we only get to train on weekends and they are trying" What the heck is this? Pass because you try??? Why not just hand out the ribbons with the entry??
> 
> At a senior level the dog should sit when told to and take casts as they they are given. They also should be able to do a double reasonably well. They should not be able or expected to hold a line as long and well as a Master's level but jezzz what I have seen pass makes me want to only do field trials. You are right, as I seen MH behind some of these dogs it means next to nothing to me. I am not saying all dog work I have seen at the Master's level has been bad but not nearly what I thought this game would demand and expect. I Guess I will just concentrate on getting QAA because this has meaning and respect to me.
> 
> ...



You obviously don't run the same HT circuit I do. Down here MH means a lot to most. Sounds like you're best suited for the FT game instead of that little ole senior title.

Good luck.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

The answer is NOT an 8-10 dog limit per handler...then you'll just have the same problem the HRC clubs have. Why would a club want to bite the hand that feeds it?? And if you honestly believe that a limit per handler will limit MN numbers please, please take a look at the latest Grand numbers...and there are 2 of those a year. Why try to "hold it down"....why not embrace it?? What's wrong with adding more judges and more flights??? And as far as the standards argument goes...the standard need not be any higher, rather, the standard that is in place need actually be enforced. JMHDAO.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

wojo said:


> Go to the Master National site . It has a breakdown for years 2010-11-12.
> 
> Now we can start the rant that the Master National is corrupt, AKC is bad ,it's all about money etc. The Master National board understands the problem. It is the Pros influence and their power over the clubs by the threat of lost revenue. The answer is limit a handler to 8-10 dogs. Not going to happen so the best alternative is a Amateur/ Pro series like FT . Let the rant begin. White or Red.


It's not a rant to have an opinion. But clearly when there are 800-900+ qualifiers and a substantial % pass the MN tests, then there needs to be adjustments. I do think they are on the right track to raise the MN testing stds but adding distance alone will be met with push-back from those that don't want FTs in camo clothing (& handling in camo makes distance a problem anyway). I would think there needs to be a % passed criteria to qualify. I don't think limiting a particular handler to a certain number of dogs is fair to the dogs since it would seem to me that we want the best dogs to qualify for the MN. Maybe a % passed for pro handled dogs would be a good first step. It would recognize the advantage a pro has and level the playing field somewhat, at least in terms of qualifying for the MN.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> It's not a rant to have an opinion. But clearly when there are 800-900+ qualifiers and a substantial % pass the MN tests, then there needs to be adjustments. I do think they are on the right track to raise the MN testing stds but adding distance alone will be met with push-back from those that don't want FTs in camo clothing (& handling in camo makes distance a problem anyway). I would think there needs to be a % passed criteria to qualify. I don't think limiting a particular handler to a certain number of dogs is fair to the dogs since it would seem to me that we want the best dogs to qualify for the MN. Maybe a % passed for pro handled dogs would be a good first step. It would recognize the advantage a pro has and level the playing field somewhat, at least in terms of qualifying for the MN.


This makes the most sense to me. Only dogs that can pass 6 out of 8 or 5 of 7 or whatever should qualify to go. If a dog has to run 20 tests to get the 6 passes to qualify, it really isn't "Master National" material to me. One man's opinion.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

jacduck said:


> I thought I had it down somewhere but I can't find it. Was there not 900 plus qualifies last year with around 700 entered? Wojo gave insight to some interesting stats that I just skimmed over.


906 Qualified in 2012 with 712 entries.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Matt McKenzie said:


> This makes the most sense to me. Only dogs that can pass 6 out of 8 or 5 of 7 or whatever should qualify to go. If a dog has to run 20 tests to get the 6 passes to qualify, it really isn't "Master National" material to me. One man's opinion.


But lets remember that Master National changed the qualification process in 2010 from 5 out of 7 to the current standards (any 6).


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Zman1001 said:


> But lets remember that Master National changed the qualification process in 2010 from 5 out of 7 to the current standards (any 6).


It would be interesting to know how much of a difference that made. Just thinking about the dogs that I know that go, it doesn't seem like much, since most of them would have qualified under either standard. I am sure it makes a difference at the margin--and probably more with the owner handler than the dogs on pro trucks. No way I am going to pull the records of all those dogs, though. I just wonder how much the surge in entries is caused by an easier qualification standard and how much is just increased demand because of the new titles.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

DoubleHaul said:


> It would be interesting to know how much of a difference that made. Just thinking about the dogs that I know that go, it doesn't seem like much, since most of them would have qualified under either standard. I am sure it makes a difference at the margin--and probably more with the owner handler than the dogs on pro trucks. No way I am going to pull the records of all those dogs, though.* I just wonder how much the surge in entries is caused by an easier qualification standard and how much is just increased demand because of the new titles*.


Probably a little of both. I have to wonder why the MN changed the std for qualification. The only logical reason seems to be to encourage increased participation at the weekend HT MH level or maybe better said to protect against a fall off in entries.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> I read some of these threads in awe! The knowledge and depth of understanding of the topic is simply amazing.
> While I do believe you have the right to speak I wonder were the authority comes from? The thread started with a statement that quickly went to the rights and wrongs of the sport along with suggested improvements to the MNRC.
> 
> I am just curious if before one hits the keyboard it is considered , especially on this topic , have I qualified a dog for the event, have I attended , has my team recieved the ribbon and plate at the end, have you saved and traveled out of your zone for the event? If one cannot answer these questions in a positive way then likely you have little to no authority on the subject.
> ...


I have nothing usefull, informative or helpful to add to the conversation. Just thought the opinion of those who have been there & done that deserves recognition. Therefore I quoted it so it pops up again.

The proud owner of 1 plate earned by a pro because I cannot take off for a 10 day event.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> Probably a little of both. I have to wonder why the MN changed the std for qualification. The only logical reason seems to be to encourage increased participation at the weekend HT MH level or maybe better said to protect against a fall off in entries.


I wonder if the change was due to AKC requirements that were attached with the creation of MNH title?


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> It would be interesting to know how much of a difference that made. Just thinking about the dogs that I know that go, it doesn't seem like much, since most of them would have qualified under either standard. I am sure it makes a difference at the margin--and probably more with the owner handler than the dogs on pro trucks. No way I am going to pull the records of all those dogs, though. I just wonder how much the surge in entries is caused by an easier qualification standard and how much is just increased demand because of the new titles.


I would probably agree with you regarding the Pro dogs and their pass rate (with a few exceptions), but I think it is a big difference for the AMs, at least the ones I know. 

Unfortunately, MN has taken ALL reference to any test prior to 2010 off of their website. They only provide access to history for all details of the test from 2010 forward. so we really can not see any good info prior to the title.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Backwater said:


> Nate new to the game and after two senior passes on two attempts the quality of dogs I have seen pass is a joke. I am not hear to tell anyone that my dog is the best or the next NFC but when I blow the whistle she sits and sits now! I don't accept second best in training nor would I accept it in the hunt test. I hear many saying at the hunt test, "well we only get to train on weekends and they are trying" What the heck is this? Pass because you try??? Why not just hand out the ribbons with the entry??
> 
> At a senior level the dog should sit when told to and take casts as they they are given. They also should be able to do a double reasonably well. They should not be able or expected to hold a line as long and well as a Master's level but jezzz what I have seen pass makes me want to only do field trials. You are right, as I seen MH behind some of these dogs it means next to nothing to me. I am not saying all dog work I have seen at the Master's level has been bad but not nearly what I thought this game would demand and expect. I Guess I will just concentrate on getting QAA because this has meaning and respect to me.
> 
> ...


If you believe Master and Senior dogs should be held to a tougher standard, then maybe you should become a judge and test these dogs to the standard you believe they should be held to. That is of course after you title (or at least pass) a dog in both and understand what it takes to be successful at that level.


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

I think the real issue that is becoming a problem will be finding a club or clubs that have the ability to handle a 600 dog event. I don't know of too many grounds that could handle this sized event. Hopefully something will be done by changing qualifications, limiting entries, holding regional events ect.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

labraiser said:


> I think the real issue that is becoming a problem will be finding a club or clubs that have the ability to handle a 600 dog event. I don't know of too many grounds that could handle this sized event. Hopefully something will be done by changing qualifications, limiting entries, holding regional events ect.


I agree with you. If entries remain high, the solution may be to have several clubs join to host the event so enough members can be found to organize and manage the event. Since the MN rotates from region to region, it may happen that the MNRC finds one location in each region where a 600-entry event can be held.

In 2014 the MN will be held at grounds in Corning, CA -- same grounds used for the 2010 MN. As a Californian, I am hoping that Corning works out in 2014 as I can't think of other suitable grounds in California for such a large event. The Marin Ret Club is hosting the 2014 MN. This is not their first rodeo hosting a MN, but that was about 2005 when entries were smaller. If any club can pull off a successful MN, Marin would be the one. I am sure that members of other No. Calif. clubs will jump in to help them. 

Helen


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

With all of the opinions on what is going on and how it affects the pros and ams, there will be changes and I would guess some split again that occurred with the establishment of the Hunt Tests.

I would really like to see a Regional qualification happen, and each test overseen by the regions rep to insure the degree of difficulty is consistent within regions. Then you pop up the difficulty a notch at the nationals, participation requires passing your regional test, and then the MNH title has some distinction. This would reduce the number of dogs going to the MN by elimination in the regional. Criteria to get to a MN Regional would be 5 MN Test sponsored club passes (bump it back down). Regionals would only last 3 days allowing the working stiffs an opportunity to run at a higher level. This would open up more sponsor clubs participating at the Regional level with lower dog numbers thus not a insurmountable feat and the property requirements are not so extreme.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Zman1001 said:


> But lets remember that Master National changed the qualification process in 2010 from 5 out of 7 to the current standards (any 6).



Just as an FYI. The 5 out of 7 requirement was voted on in September 2006, and became effective for the qualifying year 2007. So it looks like this requirement was only used for 3 (maybe 4) years before being changed. I do not know what the prior rule was, but I wonder if this change in requirement had a downward affect on the entries? Unfortunately, MN will not release that information, and they have eliminated all links to that information from their website.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

It is an unrealistic expectation for one to think that the same stake's pass results , based on being average to a Standard, can be used to* fairly *test for both the MH title, and at the same time, be used as a prequalifier for an event to be used to showcase the "Best of the Best"....... One or both will suffer for the effort, and as I see it now it is BOTH.

john


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

paul young said:


> An EXCELLENT question, Corey. While I agree that one should demand excellence in training, I would love for this guy to enter the test I am judging in September so he could show me how his dog obeys every command perfectly.-Paul


At NO POINT did I say my dog obeys perfectly, I DO expect to fail when my dog doesn't, apparently if you had read the post you would have comprehended this. I expect my dog to be failed if it refuses casts, doesn't sit on the whistle, this is what I have seen pass over and over again. And by the way come watch her anytime you want, glad to show you. She just turned two, not nearly finished yet, but I will show you sit on the whistle and cast taken as given. I knew some would be offended and react this way. The field trials as I said probably are more my game. I don't believe in affirmative actions, if my dogs refuses casts, misses mark FAIL me, I am a big boy, I'll go back, train more, learn more, and keep at it until the best dog possible is reached.

I am in Wisconsin let me know if you are judging near by and I will be sure to enter.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

helencalif said:


> Some statistics from the MNRC website comparing years 2010-1012 show the trend:
> 
> 2010 dogs entered 346. Pro handled 51.2%. Amateur handled 48.8%. The trial was held at the grounds in Corning, CA -- will be at the same grounds in 2014.
> 2011 dogs entered 569. Pro handled 59.2%. Amateur handled 40.6%.
> ...



Here are a few more statistics for years prior. With a little search on RTF, I was able to find some information. It also was quite funny how going back to 2004, these same exact Pro vs Am arguments were going on. I guess it is an annual thing.....

2005 - 307 Entered
2006 - I could not find anything
2007 - 491 Qualified / 327 Entered (instituted 5 of 7 rule)
2008 - 405 Qualified / 190 Entered (5 of 7 rule)
2009 - 374 Entered (5 of 7 rule)
2010 - 477 Qualified / 357 Entered (any 6 rule) (MNH Title voted after qualifying period ended).
2011 - 735 Qualified / 569 Entered (any 6 rule) (MNH Title voted in 3 months after qualifying period started)
2012 - 908 Qualified / 690 Entered (any 6 rule) 
2013 - 828 Qualified / TBD (estimate 630 entered) (MH tests started being limited April 2013, or 8 months after qualifying period started)

This is just information for everyone to see.

I have not included any scratches in the above entered numbers.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Backwater said:


> At NO POINT did I say my dog obeys perfectly, I DO expect to fail when my dog doesn't, apparently if you had read the post you would have comprehended this. I expect my dog to be failed if it refuses casts, doesn't sit on the whistle, this is what I have seen pass over and over again. And by the way come watch her anytime you want, glad to show you. She just turned two, not nearly finished yet, but I will show you sit on the whistle and cast taken as given. I knew some would be offended and react this way. The field trials as I said probably are more my game. I don't believe in affirmative actions, if my dogs refuses casts, misses mark FAIL me, I am a big boy, I'll go back, train more, learn more, and keep at it until the best dog possible is reached.
> 
> I am in Wisconsin let me know if you are judging near by and I will be sure to enter.



The closest I will be to your neighborhood will be at Ohio River Valley HRC in April '14, where i will be judging Master. Come on down if you can make it. I promise an honest test and an honest evaluation. - Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> The closest I will be to your neighborhood will be at Ohio River Valley HRC in April '14, where i will be judging Master. Come on down if you can make it. I promise an honest test and an honest evaluation. - Paul


Be careful with that honesty stuff, just get you in trouble....

/Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I know; I've been in trouble all my life! lol!

BUT, we did have a fellow whose dog failed last weekend thank my co-judge and me for a tough test fairly judged. It doesn't happen often but when I get that kind of feedback I appreciate it.-Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Buzz said:


> I don't see what the big deal is. MH is a designation given to a dog capable of a certain level of work. If folks are concerned about finding dogs who are the best of the best, there is another game they are welcome to play. I don't see any sense in trying to make hunt tests mini field trials. Talking from a perspective of almost zero HT experience.


Such an evil concept! lol


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Zman1001 said:


> The attendance rate has been approximately 78% of qualified since 2010. With that said, yes, it looks like there will be about 650 this year in attendance. Last year they had 908 qualified and 712 entered.
> 
> With the MH limits that clubs can now use, it appears that it did limit the number of entries, even though that rule was only in place for the last 4 months of the qualifying year. I wonder what the affect will be next year, when there is a full year of limiting entries?


While I do think the 2014 MN will have fewer entries, it will probably be due to location rather than limited entries. JMO.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Because the interest in the Master National seems to be ever increasing.................. I am with Helen .
How does a club handle all the goes into an event as large as having 800dogs, dogtrucks, birds, places to pre-national train, etc......... Good grief it's got to be mind blowing ..............
I believe that the only solution at least for a club's sake is to host it regionally just to be able to manage all the dogs, people, etc.
Sue


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

paul young said:


> The closest I will be to your neighborhood will be at Ohio River Valley HRC in April '14, where i will be judging Master. Come on down if you can make it. I promise an honest test and an honest evaluation. - Paul


Paul I appreciate the offer and I am sure our paths will cross, I do hope to meet you. As I said I meant to offend no one, but if you are fair, with an honest test and aren't afraid fail all if all fail, and pass all if all pass no one can ask for any better judging. I just feel what I have seen so far that a MH should be a pretty dog gone finished and polished retriever. Thus far I have seen only a few. I have watched many, many field trials and the quality of dogs in the qualifying is super, not to even mention the superstars I witnessed in the open test. I will be at Madison Friday to watch Grady run. This is the goal I am striving for, may never reached it but I work hard and have much to learn. I try to surround myself with knowledgeable trainers, and learn, but most of all train hard (usually everyday).

On second thought, you will be in April 2014 Ohio, I will make it, 8 months away, will see ya at the Master's she will be 2 years and 7 months old I will be ready for it!! Good luck to you and look forward to meeting. She is out of NFC Hunter's Run Boo Boo, and AFC Beat the Rush, heavily line bred on Nick of Time Lone Ranger, I think you will enjoy watching her go!


----------



## RN (Feb 10, 2006)

Zman1001 said:


> Here are a few more statistics for years prior. With a little search on RTF, I was able to find some information. It also was quite funny how going back to 2004, these same exact Pro vs Am arguments were going on. I guess it is an annual thing.....
> 
> 2005 - 307 Entered
> 2006 - I could not find anything
> ...


2006 Morgan Hill, CA- 241 entered, pass rate was about 30% - 35% as I recall.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

When will there be a Grand Master National title?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Has their been consideration of reducing the numbers based on dog performance? 
At present a Master qualifying score is an average of 7(and can remain as such). 
Instead of using "6" scores of 7 require maybe 4 scores of 9 or above to be invited to the MN. The MN has its own tiltle it deserves its own criteria. 
This way pro/amat, geography, dogs per handler... does not matter. It becomes about the dogs. You get less dogs with more talent.
JMO

Tim


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Tim Carrion said:


> Has their been consideration of reducing the numbers based on dog performance?
> At present a Master qualifying score is an average of 7(and can remain as such).
> Instead of using "6" scores of 7 require maybe 4 scores of 9 or above to be invited to the MN. The MN has its own tiltle it deserves its own criteria.
> This way pro/amat, geography, dogs per handler... does not matter. It becomes about the dogs. You get less dogs with more talent.
> ...


I can't imagine how many parking lot fights could start because of HT judges actually controlling a score. Seems a lot of whining and complaining goes on over a pass/fail right now when MN qualification time nears. lol


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Has their been consideration of reducing the numbers based on dog performance?
> At present a Master qualifying score is an average of 7(and can remain as such).
> Instead of using "6" scores of 7 require maybe 4 scores of 9 or above to be invited to the MN. The MN has its own tiltle it deserves its own criteria.
> This way pro/amat, geography, dogs per handler... does not matter. It becomes about the dogs. You get less dogs with more talent.
> ...


All this would do is lay the groundwork for placements. AND JUDGE SHOPPING WOULD BECOME AN ART FORM.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

paul young said:


> and judge shopping would become an art form.



and it is not now????


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

The MNRC seems to have been doing a little bit of number crunching on its own: Analysis of Last Three Master National Events


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The MNRC seems to have been doing a little bit of number crunching on its own: Analysis of Last Three Master National Events


Yes, they have. They know exactly what is going on and why. They just are hoping for the problems to be dealt with by the member clubs instead of reinventing themselves, which, in my opinion, is wrong.-Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

paul young said:


> Yes, they have. They know exactly what is going on and why. They just are hoping for the problems to be dealt with by the member clubs instead of reinventing themselves, which, in my opinion, is wrong.-Paul


Agreed. Nothing wrong with a reset. There is no way they could have predicted what it would become and it is almost impossible to get something of this scale right the first time. There is a lot good with the MN and there are some major issues pertaining to size. The size issues are going to require major action and a complete rebuild may be better than a modification to qualifications and in the end produce a better product.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I haven't had time to follow this the last couple of days. Has anyone suggested a double MN in two locations. By that I mean an east/west or north/south type set up. Run both at the same time, OR limit a dog to running only one per year if they are not held at the same time. The numbers are approaching those that would equal two 500 dog events. Even two 400 dog events would be big enough to more than hold their own in terms of income.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The MNRC seems to have been doing a little bit of number crunching on its own: Analysis of Last Three Master National Events


 Pretty interesting stats...

/Paul


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> I haven't had time to follow this the last couple of days. Has anyone suggested a double MN in two locations. By that I mean an east/west or north/south type set up. Run both at the same time, OR limit a dog to running only one per year if they are not held at the same time. The numbers are approaching those that would equal two 500 dog events. Even two 400 dog events would be big enough to more than hold their own in terms of income.


Good idea. Then they might capitolize on entries that would otherwise have been lost simply because folks didn't want to or were unable to travel.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

paul young said:


> Yes, they have. They know exactly what is going on and why. They just are hoping for the problems to be dealt with by the member clubs instead of reinventing themselves, which, in my opinion, is wrong.-Paul


Paul,

I don't know if member clubs across the country are discussing the high entry situation. I doubt the member clubs feel like they should come up with solutions. 

I am an officer of 2 member clubs who put on hunt tests every year. The high entry numbers for the MN have not been discussed at any member meeting or board meeting by either club. Perhaps the recent effort by the MNRC Board to change the qualifications for the MN caused a stir and individuals talked to each other about it. The vote was no. As member clubs, the clubs probably feel no compulsion to get involved. Most member clubs will never host a MN nor be involved in any way in putting one on. It's someone else's problem, not theirs. 

As far as the MN becoming an event for pros and not amateur-owner handlers, that is what the event has become. Member clubs did not change it, the dog owners made that change from "doing it myself" to "hiring a pro to do it for me". The owners who can afford to or who can get off work do attend -- at least the first few days while their dog is still in the running. The MNRC charts show that the amateur work force drops off dramatically.

I don't think that the hunt test folks will go for having two events -- a "Professional Master National" and an "Amateur Master National". I do think several solutions for entry size should be considered. 1. regional qualification events and/or 2. a West Master National and a East Master National (splitting the country down the middle utilizing Region 1 and 2, and Region 3 and 4. The location could still be moved around -- somewhere in Region 3 and 4, somewhere in Region 1 and 2. A dog could be entered only in one event.

More than likely, there will be no solutions proposed by the member clubs. I think the MNRC Board is going to have to come up with solutions. 

Helen


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

I can hear it now.." my dog is better that your dog cause we run the east coast MN and its harder than the west coast MN....and vice versa...
The MN doesn't want to cut entries because that means less revenue. Simple solution is run more than one a year, like the Grand. The arguments for make qualifying harder and limit the pros keep rolling in but the individual clubs don't want to handicap their pros by limiting their handling fees and the amateurs don't want the qualifications to get harder or the very thing they complain about in this being a pro dominated game will take place and it will require a pro to make MN qualifying economical. 
More clubs mean more tests. More tests mean more opportunities for qualifying... or not. More than one MN a year rotated around the country means more opportunities closer to home more times a year. The answer is NOT limiting pros, or flights, or changing qualifying requirements.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

JoeOverby said:


> I can hear it now.." my dog is better that your dog cause we run the east coast MN and its harder than the west coast MN....and vice versa...
> The MN doesn't want to cut entries because that means less revenue. Simple solution is run more than one a year, like the Grand. The arguments for make qualifying harder and limit the pros keep rolling in but the individual clubs don't want to handicap their pros by limiting their handling fees and the amateurs don't want the qualifications to get harder or the very thing they complain about in this being a pro dominated game will take place and it will require a pro to make MN qualifying economical.
> More clubs mean more tests. More tests mean more opportunities for qualifying... or not. More than one MN a year rotated around the country means more opportunities closer to home more times a year. The answer is NOT limiting pros, or flights, or changing qualifying requirements.


I agree, well said.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Was just discussing this today during training, before I saw the MN stats for the last 3 years. My question was, with increased qualifiers and entries where is the tipping point? That point where it becomes so cumbersome that something has to change. It looks as if that may not be to far away if it is not already the case.


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> I haven't had time to follow this the last couple of days. Has anyone suggested a double MN in two locations. By that I mean an east/west or north/south type set up. Run both at the same time, OR limit a dog to running only one per year if they are not held at the same time. The numbers are approaching those that would equal two 500 dog events. Even two 400 dog events would be big enough to more than hold their own in terms of income.


Yes I mentioned it on page 2 of this thread but I think it got lost in the bashing of the guy with the perfect dog.


----------



## younggun86 (May 2, 2013)

would having like a state master first help weed out some of the maybe not so deserving or decrease the numbers for a national to a more managable number? LIke you qualify for state, which should maybe be a little tuffer and then if you pass a state you can qualify for nationals.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Have more flights, get bigger property, raise prices, and get more volunteers from the amat, and charge the pros more for not working. Problem solved. Happy happy happy


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If they are looking to showcase only the BEST of the BEST at the MN, common sense would dictate that only the BEST should be able to qualify. 

Now if the qualifying requirements for the weekend MH test is not by design to find only the BEST, but rather is by design to find the average and above. It should not take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure out why the commingled resultant group of qualifiers is so large...

As I have said from as far back as 2004.


> "They should write their own standards in conjunction with a new AkC MHX, program stake and title.
> Hands Off the J/S/MH program it is doing what it was intended to do i.e.
> "................ *to test the merits of, and evaluate the abilities of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their suitability and ability as hunting companions*..." "


john


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

moscowitz said:


> Have more flights, get bigger property, raise prices, and get more volunteers from the amat, and charge the pros more for not working. Problem solved. Happy happy happy


Easier said than done, considering the land requirements for more flights.


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

The idea of regional events has been brought up before! The Amateurs bitterly complained that it would add to the expense and the time away from work and home. That would be prohibitive. The professionals were in favor as it meant more $$$$ and reduced the number of Amateurs that could participate! If the Amateur wanted his dog entered he would have to find a pro who was going and pay the average of three months training and the cost of entry fees and expenses. Just my guess the cost to Amateur would be $2,100+ for training plus another $ 1,000 for MN fees. Now you suggest they add regional events to qualify for the MN! Add another $ 1,500 for that event. Just my opinion but almost all the dogs are owned by Armatures and they should have the opportunity to run their dog without going broke! The MN was not created for the professional it was created for the individual to show case his MH!

Helen is close in her suggestion that the MN be held in two regions 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 or a MN in each region. By doing so it would lower the number of entries and allow more Clubs to host the MN! It is disturbing to read a post about eliminating dogs by making it harder to Qualify for the MN. If your dog is that good or you think it is try the FT game! There is only one blue or first place and you do not have to share the excitement with 50% of the other entries. Believe me a placing in a field trial is a bigger accomplishment than qualifying at the MNRC and you can run on almost every weekend! 

Trying to run the MN business on RTF is worthless! That is the job of the MNRC board! They have some very good people running the club and they are very aware of the problems facing them. Host Clubs with grounds and infrastructure are becoming very difficult to find for this size event. By the time it comes back to region 1 there could be a 1,000 dogs qualified. 

Good luck MN board!
Warren Price


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

The more it costs to get the title the more exclusive it becomes. The bigger the event, the more money it will cost, more it will generate. There should be some new trucks with fancy MN paint jobs, light show, sound stage, big buffet, huge awards ceremony just like the Oscars and don't forget, the "Afterparty"!!!!! 

I don't put much into a Master National title specifically because the dogs whom qualify can be well below average dogs. I think the dogs should get a limited amount of chances to qualify. I think there should be limited attempts at the MN per year. This makes the title a little more special because it requires the dog achieve something. Running a dog in 20 hunt tests a year and passing just enough to qualify doesn't scream a top quality dog. It just screams out that someone can afford to ship the dog all over to run enough tests to qualify. 

There should be 7 out of 10 required to qualify in my opinion. This would not fall in the favor of those folks running a truck of dogs so, I'm sure it would be called ridiculous by most all. I have to ask, shouldn't a "National" dog be at least a C average dog when it comes to a pass rate? I see a lot of D- qualifiers. Without a maximum amount of runs to prove the dog is a C average dog, the title isn't interesting enough to chase IMO. There is nothing at stake when you run. If you pass/fail, it doesn't really matter until you get down to the end of the year.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

rookie said:


> The idea of regional events has been brought up before! The Amateurs bitterly complained that it would add to the expense and the time away from work and home.


Just one amateur, but I like the regional qualifier thing. As I have said before, I can't see running the MN myself--if I wanted a plate, it would be cheaper and easier to put my dog on a pro's truck. However, if there was a regional, I might run that for fun even if I wasn't planning to go to the MN.


----------

