# AKC Master Hunt Tests Limitations



## Derrik Boland (Sep 13, 2012)

I've been trying for months to get into a MH test. I am an amateur trainer and have a female with her HRCH and trying to get her MH but every time I try to enter a test, it is full. Is AKC ever going to change the limitations? It seems that as soon as the test opens on Entry Express, it fills up within five minutes. It seems like you have to look at the computer screen every second of the day to see when a test opens. This just makes it tough on guys like me who work all day and can't keep a close eye on the computer screen. Is there any other way around this or does anyone have any suggestions for me?


----------



## Richard McCullough (Sep 22, 2009)

AKC has nothing to do with this. The clubs set the amount of flights they want. There is a little more to this, but only thing AKC has set, is after a set number of dogs, the flight has to be split unless the test is ran for 3 days.

Good luck.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

I can hear the frustration in your words and solutions are not easily available 
As the 2nd post stated it is not the AKC's doing. The AKC did allow clubs to limit tests and the spiral started. 
Suggestions I would offer you are 2 things : 1) look up the RHTAC contacts and send an email/Letter to your contact, 2) send a letter to the AKC performance departments 
Doug Lungreun as he heads up the group. 

Good luck 
Dk


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I second Dave Kress' remarks about letters. A dear friend of mine knew the ins and outs of the AKC governance very well, He used to encourage people to send letters on issues like this. Often enough 1 or 2 letters won't produce a result but as he said, "The letters in the file start to smell like dead fish and then the file is pulled and looked at very seriously/"

Within the past 6 months we had an extended thread on this subject. I would bet that your letter will not be the first on the subject.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> The AKC did allow clubs to limit tests and the spiral started.
> Suggestions I would offer you are 2 things : 1) look up the RHTAC contacts and send an email/Letter to your contact, 2) send a letter to the AKC performance departments
> Doug Lungreun as he heads up the group.


3) start a club, procure the grounds and the help and have all the unlimited MH tests you want.

Clubs do not limit the tests to be mean. They do it because they do not have the resources to handle multiple MH flights.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Cape Fear, 1/19/2015. Wide open.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm thinking that will joining the club & officially volunteer for a specific task "might" improve your odds.

It's my opinion that if they don't figure out a better way for club members and volunteers to enter their dogs, they will find fewer helping hands at the test. I'm a little crazy and volunteer at tests even when my dog isn't running, but I could understand if a volunteer didn't show or backed out if they couldn't get their dog entered into the test.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

If you form a club don't join the Master National Club and problem is solved.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

bolanjd said:


> I've been trying for months to get into a MH test. I am an amateur trainer and have a female with her HRCH and trying to get her MH but every time I try to enter a test, it is full. Is AKC ever going to change the limitations? It seems that as soon as the test opens on Entry Express, it fills up within five minutes. It seems like you have to look at the computer screen every second of the day to see when a test opens. This just makes it tough on guys like me who work all day and can't keep a close eye on the computer screen. Is there any other way around this or does anyone have any suggestions for me?


Look for clubs that are NOT members of the Master National Retriever Club. Your chances of getting in are far greater.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> Look for clubs that are NOT members of the Master National Retriever Club. Your chances of getting in are far greater.


I have a feeling this will be a trend that may take off. Less clubs will be MN clubs as time continues unless things change.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> I have a feeling this will be a trend that may take off. Less clubs will be MN clubs as time continues unless things change.


I agree--especially if AKC rescinds the ability to limit, without removing the arbitrary, required split numbers. A club would have to either drop MNRC membership or stop holding HTs altogether.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> I have a feeling this will be a trend that may take off. Less clubs will be MN clubs as time continues unless things change.


I agree. Dropping MNRC membership is one of the agenda items our club as well as many other clubs are considering this year.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Kinda strange. At one time not long ago clubs felt they had to be MN club to get entries.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

That was before MNH and MH##. The game has changed.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

QUESTIONS: Has the time arrived for the Master National Retriever Club or the AKC to see/hear the discontent among the participants of weekend AKC Retriever Hunting Tests and find alternative method(s) to qualify dogs to enter the MN that does NOT involve weekend hunt tests?

Is it time that the MNRC put on its own "weekend" hunt tests, several times a year, to qualify dogs for the week-long MN? This would take the burden off of the local hunt tests. Entry fees could be sufficient to pay for bird boys and land rental. Make their "weekend" hunt tests have a higher qualifying score?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Kinda strange. At one time not long ago clubs felt they had to be MN club to get entries.


Some do, some don't. For those that believe that they could run a profitable HT without the entries from folks seeking MNHT eligible passes, I am sure it is a hot topic.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Vicky Trainor said:


> QUESTIONS: Has the time arrived for the Master National Retriever Club or the AKC to see/hear the discontent among the participants of weekend AKC Retriever Hunting Tests and find alternative method(s) to qualify dogs to enter the MN that does NOT involve weekend hunt tests?
> 
> Is it time that the MNRC put on its own "weekend" hunt tests, several times a year, to qualify dogs for the week-long MN? This would take the burden off of the local hunt tests. Entry fees could be sufficient to pay for bird boys and land rental. Make their "weekend" hunt tests have a higher qualifying score?


Good idea. Wasn't this one of the proposals or something similar?
I think it has or is nearing the point that it isn't fun anymore.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Kinda strange. At one time not long ago clubs felt they had to be MN club to get entries.


 But now that you can buy MNH and MH30 (or whatever number passes your dog has), and as Master has become increasingly pro dominated, the entries will stay up regardless of whether a club is a MN member or not. A local club in the Mid Atlantic that is not a MN member filled its master in 10 minutes earlier this year.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Joe Brakke said:


> That was before MNH and MH##. The game has changed.[/QUOTE
> That certainly contributes to the problem.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> But now that you can buy MNH and MH30 (or whatever number passes your dog has), and as Master has become increasingly pro dominated, the entries will stay up regardless of whether a club is a MN member or not. A local club in the Mid Atlantic that is not a MN member filled its master in 10 minutes earlier this year.


Was it a 60/120 or 180 limit?


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

bolanjd said:


> I've been trying for months to get into a MH test. I am an amateur trainer and have a female with her HRCH and trying to get her MH but every time I try to enter a test, it is full. Is AKC ever going to change the limitations? It seems that as soon as the test opens on Entry Express, it fills up within five minutes. It seems like you have to look at the computer screen every second of the day to see when a test opens. This just makes it tough on guys like me who work all day and can't keep a close eye on the computer screen. Is there any other way around this or does anyone have any suggestions for me?


Help me understand. Results posted on Entry Express show multiple Master tests with unused slots in the state of Tennessee in 2014. The last test of the year had 20 openings in October.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Help me understand. Results posted on Entry Express show multiple Master tests with unused slots in the state of Tennessee in 2014. The last test of the year had 20 openings in October.


It's all about 
Location-Location-Location


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Agree completely on location as a factor. I would consider hunt test located within a 2 to 3 hours drive as reasonable. By the way, numerous Master slots not filled in multiple test held in Alabama as well in 2014.


----------



## NCShooter (Dec 6, 2012)

Dan,
If you look at the October test there were two tests that weekend. One in TN and one in NC. Both were in mine and others 2-3 hour drive window. We had to choose one or the other. Definitely affected attendance at the TN test.
NCShooter


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Swampcollie said:


> I agree. Dropping MNRC membership is one of the agenda items our club as well as many other clubs are considering this year.


I think that would help many clubs, but not as much as you might think. Many people that have already qualified continue to run and at that point don't care if it is a MN club or not. It would help for sure, but maybe not enough to greatly effect entries.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Dan Epperson said:


> Help me understand. Results posted on Entry Express show multiple Master tests with unused slots in the state of Tennessee in 2014. The last test of the year had 20 openings in October.


Location is key. Our club is the southern most in the US. We are so far south in Florida that most of the other clubs in the state have a 4-6 hour drive to get there and that says noting of those who come from other states. Last month our fall test was limited to 120 dogs and we had 100 enter. While we were not full we have never had a second flight at our fall test. It is usually 50 or so dogs, so you have to assume that qualifications for the MN and the difficulty of getting into a test played a key role in people running our test and driving many hours to get there. We had people from as far away as the Atlanta area, a good 9-10 hour drive.


----------



## dgowder (Apr 3, 2012)

Would it be feasible to split the country into 10 or 12 regions and have maybe 2 mn qualifier tests at each region per year and have each mn club in that region contribute resources to put each test on and eliminate the current system of qualifying?


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

dgowder said:


> Would it be feasible to split the country into 10 or 12 regions and have maybe 2 mn qualifier tests at each region per year and have each mn club in that region contribute resources to put each test on and eliminate the current system of qualifying?


This would be helpful and allow the AKC to increase the number of participants. BUT since it is based on a Standard and not dog against dog your variable would be they judges and set ups. In otherwords the debate would become is a East Coast MN4 = to a West Coast / Midwest MN4. This would be the critical aspect of conduction regional Master Nationals. 

Although it would create another hottly contested thread here though, which is better and MN title from NC or a MN title from CA ?? ..... ha ha ha get the popcorn.

Also the format would be too close to HRC Grand Regional and I do not think the powers to be at the AKC would even think about copying a HRC format.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I think that would help many clubs, but not as much as you might think. Many people that have already qualified continue to run and at that point don't care if it is a MN club or not. It would help for sure, but maybe not enough to greatly effect entries.


That's true, there are some folks who continue to run master tests just for something to do with their dogs and that's ok. There are other clubs in the area that are not affiliated with the MN and they still draw 50 to 60 Master dogs for their events without limiting entries. That number is easier to manage than the 100+ dogs some clubs are seeing. 

The question the members of the local weekend clubs (all of the members, not just those chasing the MN) will have to answer is do they continue to see value in the MN and therefore membership in the MNRC? In the case of our club this will be studied over the next couple of months and then the membership will have their say. (It doesn't look too good for the MN at this point.)


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Joe Brakke said:


> This would be helpful and allow the AKC to increase the number of participants. BUT since it is based on a Standard and not dog against dog your variable would be they judges and set ups. In otherwords the debate would become is a East Coast MN4 = to a West Coast / Midwest MN4. This would be the critical aspect of conduction regional Master Nationals.
> 
> Although it would create another hottly contested thread here though, which is better and MN title from NC or a MN title from CA ?? ..... ha ha ha get the popcorn.
> 
> Also the format would be too close to HRC Grand Regional and I do not think the powers to be at the AKC would even think about copying a HRC format.


What is the "HRC Grand Regional"?


----------



## dgowder (Apr 3, 2012)

I wasn't proposing regional master nationals, just qualifying events to get in to the mn instead of the current qualifying system


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Joe Brakke said:


> This would be helpful and allow the AKC to increase the number of participants. BUT since it is based on a Standard and not dog against dog your variable would be they judges and set ups. In otherwords the debate would become is a East Coast MN4 = to a West Coast / Midwest MN4. This would be the critical aspect of conduction regional Master Nationals.
> 
> Although it would create another hottly contested thread here though, which is better and MN title from NC or a MN title from CA ?? ..... ha ha ha get the popcorn.


Why don't we get that now? Why on earth would you think it would start with different MNHTs or qualfiers? The standard is the standard and the MH title is the same regardless. Sure some folks brag on straight passes, age or whatever to try to make it more than it is but I have never heard anyone saying a MH is better from one region to another and would not expect it to start.



Joe Brakke said:


> Also the format would be too close to HRC Grand Regional and I do not think the powers to be at the AKC would even think about copying a HRC format.


The MNRC is totally different from the AKC. The only involvement that the AKC has is allowing a MNHT pass to count as two passes for a MH title.

But to answer the original question, regardless of the actual feasibility of some sort of regional MNHT or regional qualifying therefor, the powers that be at the MNRC have already determined it as unfeasible and said as much in their chinese menu of alternatives they sent out to member clubs for a straw vote. Not that it is really not feasible, but the MNRC muckity mucks just don't want to consider it for whatever reason.


----------



## priceskeet (Jun 30, 2008)

Splash_em said:


> What is the "HRC Grand Regional"?


Richard, that's when Central Alabama has there HRC test!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The MNRC is totally different from the AKC. The only involvement that the AKC has is allowing a MNHT pass to count as two passes for a MH title.


This statement is not true. In order to be invited to participate at the Master National a dog must have 6 passes with in the time frame of August 1 - July 31. If you have 6 passes, you have an MH title. Therefore every dog that qualifies to go to the MN has the MH title. 

Where I think you are confused is that dogs who pass the MN one year are awarded the equilivent of 2 passes towards the next year's event, so only need 4 additional passes from August 1-July 31.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

priceskeet said:


> Richard, that's when Central Alabama has there HRC test!!!!!!!!!!!!


It is getting deep and it is still hunting season! Be glad when you are hunting for 4 weeks & don't have Internet access. Going to nominate you as permanent hunt test chair for Central Alabama & Black Warrior.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Obvious to me anyway that #32 is not active in the ht venue nor participates with the Master National !
Yep the ht venue is to a standard however that standard is applied different across the Nation and from Region to Region, State to State, Club to Club and most importantly judge to judge. 
Many folks that enter look at a judges pass rate and how they might apply the standard. So whomever implied regionals might not all be equal hit the peg square with the observation IMHO 
Dk


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> This statement is not true. In order to be invited to participate at the Master National a dog must have 6 passes with in the time frame of August 1 - July 31. If you have 6 passes, you have an MH title. Therefore every dog that qualifies to go to the MN has the MN title.
> 
> Where I think you are confused is that dogs who pass the MN one year are awarded the equilivent of 2 passes towards the next year's event, so only need 4 additional passes from August 1-July 31.


My point was that the MNRC makes up its rules for qualification, not the AKC. As far as the two passes counting, the MNRC itself in its list of options said that reducing the series would require AKC approval to maintain the two pass deal, which is why I included it as a qualifier. My original point stands, though, that even if the AKC thought it was somehow too HRC-ish (not sure how) it is not up to the AKC.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> Obvious to me anyway that #32 is not active in the ht venue nor participates with the Master National !
> Yep the ht venue is to a standard however that standard is applied different across the Nation and from Region to Region, State to State, Club to Club and most importantly judge to judge.
> Many folks that enter look at a judges pass rate and how they might apply the standard. So whomever implied regionals might not all be equal hit the peg square with the observation IMHO
> Dk


Then you are obviously wrong. 

I recognize that judges judge differently and that some (many is pushing it, don't you think?) folks follow 'easy' judges, but there are tough and easy judges all over. I have heard that FT circuit X is tougher than FT circuit Y, but that is mostly because of the caliber and number of dogs competing. I have never heard of folks saying that a dog from one region with a MH is somehow less or more deserving than one from another. But I don't spend a lot of time around folks that would participate in that kind of senseless discussion.


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

Dave Kress said:


> Obvious to me anyway that #32 is not active in the ht venue nor participates with the Master National !
> Yep the ht venue is to a standard however that standard is applied different across the Nation and from Region to Region, State to State, Club to Club and most importantly judge to judge.
> Many folks that enter look at a judges pass rate and how they might apply the standard. So whomever implied regionals might not all be equal hit the peg square with the observation IMHO
> Dk


Dave, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that also true of the MN? Don't each group have the same judges(group A, judges A, group B judges B, ect) and isn't it true that each group does not even run the same set of series to pass the MN? Isn't it correct to say that for each group of dogs, the series of tests are different and the judges are different?? If I am correct, why would it matter if each group was in a different part of the country? 

Let me add that for sure each dog that qualifies for the MN, does not run the same MH tests with the same judges.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Yes they are all different at the MN level. Perhaps it doesn't ! 
Dk


----------



## DLR (Sep 17, 2014)

DoubleHaul said:


> 3) start a club, procure the grounds and the help and have all the unlimited MH tests you want.
> 
> Clubs do not limit the tests to be mean. They do it because they do not have the resources to handle multiple MH flights.



Agree, part of the problem is everyone wants to run the test, but no one wants to work them. Before everyone freaks out.....I know there are a lot of hard working folks that put on tests year in and year out, I am one of those, but there are not nearly enough of us. I honestly believe that every person running dogs in tests should *HAVE* to be a member of club that puts on tests not just a training club. Or at least those that are members of clubs that put on tests get priority over those who are not.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

DLR said:


> Agree, part of the problem is everyone wants to run the test, but no one wants to work them. Before everyone freaks out.....I know there are a lot of hard working folks that put on tests year in and year out, I am one of those, but there are not nearly enough of us. I honestly believe that every person running dogs in tests should *HAVE* to be a member of club that puts on tests not just a training club. Or at least those that are members of clubs that put on tests get priority over those who are not.


How would you ever police that? Is it just membership I need? So basically I have to pay 35.00 to join a club to get access to hunt tests. I think the solution is easier then that.

1. If you passed last years national or you are a master national hunter you don't have to re-qualify.
2. Re-enact the 5 out of 7 rule for everyone else. 
3. Require clubs to post the date and time entries will be open or better yet create a standard time like the Monday 3 weeks before the test so everyone has a fair shot. 
4. Allow HT Chairmen to submit entries for club members before the posted entry date to insure members can enter there dog in there own test.

This would cut down on entries a bit, and make the process fairer.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Nate_C said:


> How would you ever police that? Is it just membership I need? So basically I have to pay 35.00 to join a club to get access to hunt tests. I think the solution is easier then that.


It would have significant impact. Why? Because the clubs could then impose work requirements for members. If you don't help out, you're gone and you can't play the game ANYWHERE because you must be a member of "A Club", somewhere, to enter. This would cause a change in culture for quite a number of people.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Joe Brakke said:


> This would be helpful and allow the AKC to increase the number of participants. BUT since it is based on a Standard and not dog against dog your variable would be they judges and set ups. In otherwords the debate would become is a East Coast MN4 = to a West Coast / Midwest MN4. This would be the critical aspect of conduction regional Master Nationals.
> 
> Although it would create another hottly contested thread here though, which is better and MN title from NC or a MN title from CA ?? ..... ha ha ha get the popcorn.
> 
> Also the format would be too close to HRC Grand Regional and I do not think the powers to be at the AKC would even think about copying a HRC format.




Ok- seriously though you quite simply can not have a "regional master national" by definition. 

Regional master national qualifiers through out the year, coupled with 1 or 2 master national tests a year I think is what people are talking about, and while any revamp of the procedures and rules for qualifying etc is going to be a headache - at a glance the idea of regional qualifiers seems sensible. Probably have them go 5-6 series, so as to make them meaningfully different and more challenging than a typical weekend test, but without having to change the standards for a passing score. However..

I have no dog in this flight regards,
Juan trueno


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Interesting. Earlier this year the MNRC distributed over 1000 copies of a survey inviting comments and suggestions. I would bet a nut that they received less responses than this thread ALONE has generated. 

Might as well write your suggestions on the **** house wall as on an interwebs forum regards

Bubba


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Look at the Growth Strategies section on the MNRC website. Your club should be submitting their vote to the MNRC by 12-31-14. Or, a club can submit their own proposal by that date.
I don't think any of these will solve the weekend problem but might have some impact.


----------



## Lyle Steinman (Aug 10, 2003)

Tom Dorroh,

Call me sometime.

Thanks,


Lyle 8165229650


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Interesting. Earlier this year the MNRC distributed over 1000 copies of a survey inviting comments and suggestions. I would bet a nut that they received less responses than this thread ALONE has generated.
> 
> Might as well write your suggestions on the **** house wall as on an interwebs forum regards
> 
> Bubba


May be true, but they are not due yet.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> This statement is not true. In order to be invited to participate at the Master National a dog must have 6 passes with in the time frame of August 1 - July 31. If you have 6 passes, you have an MH title. Therefore every dog that qualifies to go to the MN has the MH title.
> 
> Where I think you are confused is that dogs who pass the MN one year are awarded the equilivent of 2 passes towards the next year's event, so only need 4 additional passes from August 1-July 31.



Oh, it gets even more confusing than that. Only the MNRC awards the equivilent of 2 passes towards the next year's event. The AKC still considers the MN pass as only 1 pass. 

Arleen


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

jhnnythndr said:


> Ok- seriously though you quite simply can not have a "regional master national" by definition.
> 
> Regional master national qualifiers through out the year, coupled with 1 or 2 master national tests a year I think is what people are talking about, and while any revamp of the procedures and rules for qualifying etc is going to be a headache - at a glance the idea of regional qualifiers seems sensible. Probably have them go 5-6 series, so as to make them meaningfully different and more challenging than a typical weekend test, but without having to change the standards for a passing score. However..
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I'm laughing now. Just how would you decide who goes in what region. Many trainers get dogs from all over the country. Here is a for example: My husband got our dog qualified for the MN in the western region but since he could not attend, we had a handler from another region run our dog. Since we live in Arizona where it is too hot to train for very long and with little or no water around to have access to, we have to send our dogs elsewhere. And I don't like the idea that if things were by region, it would take away my free choice to send my dog to whatever trainer I wanted to. Also, this also sets up a whole lot of areas for cheating. Imagine several trainers and handlers plus all their clients assuming the same address just to get around this rule. As I stated before, the more regulations that are put on, the more people will try to find a way around them and then the consequence is a whole lot more politics enters the picture. Simply human nature!! As I also stated before, I don't like ANY of the proposals. I, too, have experienced not being able to get my dogs into the EE system because of limitations. Since AKC has allowed limits, I feel EE should help to combat the problem by setting up some kind of waiting list. There are Pros that fill up slots and then cancel some but contact certain other people trying to get in to be on the lookout. This leaves particular the amateurs clueless that an opening or 10 are about to happen. Wait list is the only fair way if it can be arranged.

Arleen


----------



## dgowder (Apr 3, 2012)

As far as regional qualifiers and which you run you could have a choice , either based off your address or the trainers that would be in effect for the entire year. If each region has two qualifiers and you change regions mid season( move, or send dog with pro that is in another region)as long as you haven't ran but 1 you would be eligible to run the second in new region. Easy to limit qualifier entries to 2 per year no matter which region is ran through ee I would guess


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I doubt if regional qualifiers would ever happen due to the resources needed.

There isn't going to one magic bullet to fix either weekend or MN problems. It will be 2 or 3 changes that will be needed and take several years to do it. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## DLR (Sep 17, 2014)

Swampcollie said:


> It would have significant impact. Why? Because the clubs could then impose work requirements for members. If you don't help out, you're gone and you can't play the game ANYWHERE because you must be a member of "A Club", somewhere, to enter. This would cause a change in culture for quite a number of people.


Exactly! You don't work you don't play! By doing this it could create more clubs and in return more HT dates and opportunities to run. Or at the very least there will be more people available to possibly run more flights. And best of all not as many people sitting on there asses complaining about not getting into to tests they wanted to. While the people putting on the test are running their asses off trying to get setup, tore down etc.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Do you really think AKC would approve this? Who is going to verify everyone is a club member is up to date with their dues?Does each pro as well as each owner of the dogs they run need to be a club member? If a pro brings 15 dogs, there are 15 entries for which their will be no owners present to help. Some Ams have 4-5 dogs. They contribute 1 worker. I have 1 dog and 1 worker. Where's the equity in that?


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Who is going to verify everyone is a club member is up to date with their dues?


The same people who are responsible to oversee judges qualifying a dog at least once in seven years at the level they're judging.


----------



## Ed Bahr (Jul 1, 2007)

Just because you are a club member doesn't mean that you work at events......just saying


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> The same people who are responsible to oversee judges qualifying a dog at least once in seven years at the level they're judging.


Let's pile on more stuff and make sure judges are club members too.


----------



## DLR (Sep 17, 2014)

Beamer81 said:


> Just because you are a club member doesn't mean that you work at events......just saying


If you don't work your kicked! That simple! The main thing I'm getting at here is, less talk more work. Everyone wants to complain but no one wants to run a winger, shot or whatever else. It's a lot easier to sit in their chair and complain!


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Let's pile on more stuff and make sure judges are club members too.


Damn another HRC rule copied by AKC??

What next make AKC judges judge lower levels before being approved to judge higher levels?
Or extend the Master level to 150 yards like HRC, or require judges run dogs like in HRC??
HRC has 2 Nationals a year and no qualifying other than the upper level title.. Perhaps more nationals is the answer...


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

Im sick of it ! Im just gonna get me a white coat and run FT until they figure out what they're gonna do .


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Mike Sale said:


> Im sick of it ! Im just gonna get me a white coat and run FT until they figure out what they're gonna do .


You might find it so much fun you don't care when (if) they do figure it out.


----------



## Chris Winkelman (Mar 23, 2011)

Why not just limit the number of dogs per handler per flight?


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Bubba said:


> Interesting. Earlier this year the MNRC distributed over 1000 copies of a survey inviting comments and suggestions. I would bet a nut that they received less responses than this thread ALONE has generated.
> 
> Might as well write your suggestions on the **** house wall as on an interwebs forum regards
> 
> Bubba


Worth repeating. 
Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Let's pile on more stuff and make sure judges are club members too.


If every club member worked a full shift at a hunt test, you would need to create things for them to do. One of the things could be to verify membership. So, technically the pile of stuff would be larger, but spread out amongst many more people.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

DoubleHaul said:


> You might find it so much fun you don't care when (if) they do figure it out.


I hope so. I have a pup I'm getting ready for derby and been training her mom for the qual.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

TN_LAB said:


> If every club member worked a full shift at a hunt test, you would need to create things for them to do. One of the things could be to verify membership. So, technically the pile of stuff would be larger, but spread out amongst many more people.


If every member pitched in just half a shift it would make the life so much easier for everyone especially those who have already done a ton of work prior to the event....if if's and but's were candy and nuts.....right??


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

DLR said:


> If you don't work your kicked! That simple! The main thing I'm getting at here is, less talk more work. Everyone wants to complain but no one wants to run a winger, shot or whatever else. It's a lot easier to sit in their chair and complain!


So what do you do with a pro and 15 dogs? Do you make them bring a worker to work all weekend?


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Tom Dorroh.... Need your email have info for you


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Tom 
Check your msg.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> So what do you do with a pro and 15 dogs? Do you make them bring a worker to work all weekend?


I'm not sure it would be necessary if all the club members were working, but I don't think it would be rude to suggest that they do make some additional contribution to that specific club. Maybe they have a 4 wheeler available, or maybe they could host a club training seminar, or host a picnic training day? 

I don't have answers, only ideas.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> So what do you do with a pro and 15 dogs? Do you make them bring a worker to work all weekend?


Umm Pros are making a living off running these test, the volunteer workers throwing for them are not, asking them to bring workers perhaps, paying a bird boy or 2 to ensure these tests go on isn't <gasps> out of the realm of possibilities. It might be an intelligent investment in fact, (costs could be split between clients) less clubs putting on events-less people wanting to do such volunteer work could have a way of affecting a Pros livelihood. Wouldn't it be nice to have club begging for certain Pros to come because they supply workers for additional stakes, rather than b&tching about them because they swamp limited stakes and are either unable or unwilling to help.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

In the FT game, PRTA PUTS ON SEVERAL TRIALS PER YEAR! That level of responsibility and involvement by the HT pros in HT's does not exist today.-Paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Very few are members of PRTA, unless their member list is out of date.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Chris Winkelman said:


> Why not just limit the number of dogs per handler per flight?


Makes sense to me. At least for the first few days of entry, then open it up


----------



## Ed Bahr (Jul 1, 2007)

DLR said:


> If you don't work your kicked! That simple! The main thing I'm getting at here is, less talk more work. Everyone wants to complain but no one wants to run a winger, shot or whatever else. It's a lot easier to sit in their chair and complain!


I agree but I think a bunch of members would be kicked......I don't mind working at all, but once people know you are willing to work......guess what you end up working the entire weekend......kind of takes some of the fun out of the weekend events


----------



## DLR (Sep 17, 2014)

Beamer81 said:


> I agree but I think a bunch of members would be kicked......I don't mind working at all, but once people know you are willing to work......guess what you end up working the entire weekend......kind of takes some of the fun out of the weekend events


So all the leeches will be kicked who cares, if they are not helping at the HT are they a member that is supporting the club? I don't know about other clubs, but I know in ours the HTs are are main source of income. Income used to buy wingers or whatever other training supplies the club needs. To me people not helping at HTs is the same as people showing up late and leaving early from club training days so they don't have to help setup or cleanup. Like I said leeches.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

DLR said:


> So all the leeches will be kicked who cares, if they are not helping at the HT are they a member that is supporting the club? I don't know about other clubs, but I know in ours the HTs are are main source of income. Income used to buy wingers or whatever other training supplies the club needs. To me people not helping at HTs is the same as people showing up late and leaving early from club training days so they don't have to help setup or cleanup. Like I said leeches.


Agreed, but only caveat I'd make would be the "older timers" who have already given a ton...we have a couple in our club and I don't expect them to work, but they do...don't know why the younger members can't step up to the plate?!


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

My Dad told me a long time ago that there were two kinds of people in the world; givers and takers. 
The givers are a jewel to any event and have high respect to others including themselves. 
The takers expect everything and still want more with nothing from them in return.
Just how things are….


----------

