# Master Am Retriever Club



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

*New : Master Amateur Retriever Club*

Best of luck in this new venture.


http://www.masteramateur.com/

Thanks to all of those who have worked to get this up and running and to the AKC for recognizing the amateur and how important we are to the sport. I look forward to doing all I can to help it.


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

Retriever Hunting Test Community Announcement




Announcing the Formation of the
Master Amateur Retriever Club
We are very pleased to announce the formation of a new National club, the Master Amateur Retriever Club ...
The Master Amateur Retriever Club (MARC) is a new national club dedicated to the amateur handler. MARC believes that amateurs are the purpose and backbone of the AKC Hunting Test for Retrievers program and will support and encourage their involvement in the sport. MARC, while patterned after the Master National is a separate and distinct organization. MARC will host an annual invitational event - The Master Amateur Invitational - for qualified amateur handled retrievers. The club is in the process of formation and obtaining its license from the AKC. The inaugural event is planned to be in the eastern region in the spring of 2017.

Master Amateur Invitational
The Master Amateur Invitational will be open to all dogs who, when handled by an amateur, have passed 6 or more AKC Master hunting tests during the qualifying period of March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017. Full qualifying details will be forthcoming. 

Link to MARC website


MARC Board of Directors

PRESIDENT: Bob Swift

SECRETARY / TREASURER: Dave Kress
EASTERN REGION
VICE PRESIDENT: Bob Montler
EASTERN REGION
DIRECTOR: Frank Prendergast
CENTRAL REGION
VICE PRESIDENT: John Blackbird
CENTRAL REGION
DIRECTOR: Ed Sullivan
WEST CENTRAL REGION
VICE PRESIDENT: Paul McGinnis
WEST CENTRAL REGION
DIRECTOR: Dave Christianson
WEST REGION
VICE PRESIDENT: Steve Elliott
WEST REGION
DIRECTOR: Laura Judd

Please direct any questions to:
[email protected]

The forming Board of Directors wishes to express our sincerest thanks 
to both Retriever News and Entry Express for their capable assistance 
in helping us launch this exciting new organization. We truly would 
not be where we are without their knowledge and help.












Master Amateur Retriever Club | P.O. Box 943 | Demopolis | AL | 36732 

This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] 
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe Safe Unsubscribe 

Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

While I applaud the effort, it seems a rather difficult row to hoe.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Tobias said:


> While I applaud the effort, it seems a rather difficult row to hoe.


Nothing worthwhile comes easy or without a great amount of work, help and some luck. 

We have been asking for something to be done to manage numbers in the national event. Those on the inaugural board are dedicated amateurs who love this sport and have put themselves out there for us by forming this new club. We can make this successful and be a compliment to the Master National event.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Tobias said:


> While I applaud the effort, it seems a rather difficult row to hoe.


I'm just curious...

What are the difficulties that they will be overcoming in the course of getting this up and running?


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Congratulations! It has been a long time coming.

Bill Blochowiak


----------



## Arnie (Nov 26, 2012)

Tobias said:


> While I applaud the effort, it seems a rather difficult row to hoe.



I agree though, as an amateur one-dog handler, I'm looking forward to seeing the effort succeed. 


My first thoughts: Most amateur handlers with Master level dogs probably can get 6 passes in the year's time but the amateur pass rate is generally lower than the pros'. That means running more tests with the associated commitment in time and money in order to qualify. Then, once qualified, making the cross country trip for just one or two dogs is harder to justify than sending you dog with a pro who's costs are shared between multiple owners.


Just as hunt tests evolved from field trials that had become a pro's game, MARC seems designed to bring the amateur back into the advanced hunt test game. 


Good Luck!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Arnie said:


> I agree though, as an amateur one-dog handler, I'm looking forward to seeing the effort succeed.
> 
> 
> My first thoughts: Most amateur handlers with Master level dogs probably can get 6 passes in the year's time but the amateur pass rate is generally lower than the pros'. That means running more tests with the associated commitment in time and money in order to qualify. Then, once qualified, making the cross country trip for just one or two dogs is harder to justify than sending you dog with a pro who's costs are shared between multiple owners.
> ...


This sums up my thoughts as to why it won't be easy. I think it is time though, for a voice that promotes amateur trainers and handlers


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Arnie said:


> I agree though, as an amateur one-dog handler, I'm looking forward to seeing the effort succeed.
> 
> 
> My first thoughts: Most amateur handlers with Master level dogs probably can get 6 passes in the year's time but the amateur pass rate is generally lower than the pros'. That means running more tests with the associated commitment in time and money in order to qualify. Then, once qualified, making the cross country trip for just one or two dogs is harder to justify than sending you dog with a pro who's costs are shared between multiple owners.
> ...


Many more details will be forthcoming but one thing shared with us at the annual GMHTA meeting Sunday was that an amateur handler may run 2 guest dogs as well as his own. This was, I am sure, done because the organizing body recognized a possible hardship for a 1 dog owner and kept the purity of an amateur event.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Arnie said:


> Just as hunt tests evolved from field trials that had become a pro's game, MARC seems designed to bring the amateur back into the advanced hunt test game.
> Good Luck!


Time will tell.
As you said field trials became a "pro's game" and there has been a National Amateur Retriever Club for decades,
I'm sure there will be many details that will need to be worked out now and in the future. History tends to repeat itself.

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Who tracks if the dog was handled by an amateur or not? is this going to start driving a new level in HTs? (MH Pro/MH Amateur) Does this help or hurt the weekend HT? hmmmm

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Who tracks if the dog was handled by an amateur or not? is this going to start driving a new level in HTs? (MH Pro/MH Amateur) Does this help or hurt the weekend HT? hmmmm
> 
> /Paul


I was told no. But it does beg the question of how to track who ran the dog - is it now on the HTS to verify this? It's hard enough to verify judges qualifications....I can only imagine how difficult this will be.


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

My understanding in speaking with some of the board members is that yes, the hunt test secretary is going to have to verify who handled the dog. Yep, it is going to be a little bit of work. From what I understand there may be some changes in the catalog most of use from EE so the secretary can note the amateur or pro handled dog. 

At first it may seem like a daunting task, but I don't think it will be that difficult for the local secretaries, marshals and test chairs. I have been the test chair for about 9-10 years for my club and we run a three day, double master test along with a double junior and double senior. We have had over 300 dogs entered in the event with about 130-140 master dogs between the two master events. We aren't the biggest, but we sure aren't small. If we can do it here I am pretty certain it can be done most anywhere. Between myself, my secretary and my marshals and stake chairs, we know which pros are here. If a dog is listed in the catalog as being handled by "Pro Joe or Owner Jones" it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to whip out a pencil in the gallery and mark the book correctly. And I believe we are small enough and tight enough community that we can police that up ourselves. It's not like you are going to have to keep track of every dog entered. You only need to worry about the qualifiers. I pretty much know most of the amateurs up here in my country and likewise the pros. If we are handing out ribbons at the end of the event and it says "Owner Jones" handled his dog and I haven't seen "Owner Jones" around for three days I would be doing a little double-checking.

I'd like to think that the boots on the ground at every retriever club out there is willing to go to the little bit of extra effort to help make this new club successful rather than kick back and make no effort to watch it fail and then say "I told you so." I know we will be doing all we can here at Central Minnesota Retriever Club.


----------



## Chris Richards (Feb 25, 2005)

I applaud the efforts by the board and the creation of the new club. There may be hurdles, but I think it is very important for the Hunt Test sport that this succeed.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Question is Master National going to support this move or oppose it? Since the possibility of Pro Master national and Amat Master National could be a result of this move. For one I support this bold venture and hope it succeeds. But who is lurking in the background to throw the wrench into the mix?


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

I to applaud the effort BUT if they don't get the backing from AKC in means of a official title for the dog, then I don't really seen this being very much and of attraction for the amateur. It will just become another club holding a test.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

There will a an announcement that will clarify the process. There should be enough bumps in the road to provide an appetizer or two for the naysayers. The Marc is a separate club, MARC is a discrete club, MARC is a distinct club. That is they are not affiliated with the Master National. There is no Pro vs. Am issue except for those that are manufactured.


----------



## Barry Ireland (Feb 18, 2005)

I would say give it a chance to succeed before trying to tear it down. I love the idea of being able to play against other amateurs and one or two dog teams.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

It's hunt tests. There is no competing against other handlers or dogs. Just trying to achieve the standard as written in the hunt test regulations.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Oh Tobias. Judged against the standard or not, most handlers are out there competing against other handlers every weekend. The dogs may not be getting placements but It is no less a competition.

Dawn


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

wojo said:


> There is no Pro vs. Am issue except for those that are manufactured.


The fact that u even mentioned it tell us that statement to be false !!!


----------



## Barry Ireland (Feb 18, 2005)

Tobias said:


> It's hunt tests. There is no competing against other handlers or dogs. Just trying to achieve the standard as written in the hunt test regulations.


I guess to be correct I should have worded it different. It will be fun watching the other amateurs run their own dogs and not the 20 dog trailers with the pro handling. Although I did attend a SRS in Oklahoma once where the pro brought his pack and let his so-called amateur run his truckload of client dogs.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Great effort by all involved. Looking forward to seeing the idea succeed.. 
As in field trials I can see actual person handling dog being properly recorded in catalog to akc being problematic.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I like it and hope it's successful. Will be interesting to see details and by laws.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Final Flight Retrievers said:


> I to applaud the effort BUT if they don't get the backing from AKC in means of a official title for the dog, then I don't really seen this being very much and of attraction for the amateur. It will just become another club holding a test.


Oh, _puhleez!_ When did the AKC not promote new games/titles/breeds/etc? Don't they have every incentive in the world to collect their bit of $$ any time they can get dogs and owners to pay entry fees one darn thing or another? 

I'm not being critical. Just asking the question.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

1tulip said:


> Oh, _puhleez!_ When did the AKC not promote new games/titles/breeds/etc?


 I don't know how long did it take them to recognize the Master National Hunter title or the qualified all age title. both need to be purchased I do believe...... Just Saying !!!!


----------



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

I want to wish the MNAMHT all the luck in the world. The only thing that concerns me is it going to be easier to get a dog entered in a Master test. Will there be run a Am only MH test along with a pro handled Master test?....so many unanswered questions.....


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Can a club be a member of MART and host an AM only master test?


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

So the qualifying period is different than the Master National... the qualifying period of March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017. So for you folks that thought it was tough getting into hunt tests before may now have to compete with those that want to qualify for both! Ho Hum, I compiled to the best of my knowledge- your double double you spoke of for 2015- Master A had 43 entries, 33 PRO handlers 24 qualified-22 PRO. (20 of 24 already MH) Master A Saturday 38 entries, 21 PRO handlers 7 qualified, 4 of which were PRO. (6 of the 7 already MH) Master B Friday 40 entries, 21 qualified, 11 PRO Handled, (17 of the 21 already MH). Master B Saturday 36 entries, 25 PRO handled , 9 qualified 6 of which were PRO handled, 6 of the 9 already were MH.

I hope it works, but I think, taking that PRO-trained dog off of the truck at the test and having the owner handle at the test will be the biggest challenge. At the end of the day the judges will judge the dogs and the quality of the handling that makes the team. With more owners stepping to the line, I suggest some handling seminars being taken.


----------



## Larry Thompson (Oct 3, 2007)

Congratulations ... concept is great!! Here's hoping it works.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

So is this an owner handler kind of thing or just amateur? If it just amateur what to stop the professional amateur from running 20+ dogs for other amateurs, or off loading a pro truck? Contrarywise if it owner handler can a pro run his own personal dogs that he owns, but not client dog? Who gonna be checking that those 6 passes were indeed amateur ran? I do wish you luck but seem like there's a lot of details to be ironed out.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> So is this an owner handler kind of thing or just amateur? If it just amateur what to stop the professional amateur from running 20+ dogs for other amateurs, or off loading a pro truck? Contrarywise if it owner handler can a pro run his own personal dogs that he owns, but not client dog? Who gonna be checking that those 6 passes were indeed amateur ran? I do wish you luck but seem like there's a lot of details to be ironed out.


I re-read the announcement and there is nothing specific in it about "owners". Only amateurs. So it would, indeed, seem to be possible to game the system with pseudo-amateurs who run 30 dogs for 20 of their closest "friends". 

If the point of the MARC is to promote the idea of folks running their own dogs, in the original spirit of the Hunt Test movement, the MARC would have to specify that entered dogs be qualified 6 times by their _owners_. (I understand, of course, that there are loop-holes for weird co-ownership arrangements, but you can't fix everything.)


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

Here in the Southeast it will still be difficult to qualify for the Amateur National. Just getting in 6 tests is a challenge, not to mention getting 6 passes.


----------



## Scott R. (Mar 13, 2012)

Hambone said:


> Here in the Southeast it will still be difficult to qualify for the Amateur National. Just getting in 6 tests is a challenge, not to mention getting 6 passes.


The tests I saw in the Carolinas this fall largely closed short of being full.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Hopefully, this will help to clear up some of the confusion regarding this new venue. I think this is a great opportunity for Amateurs who choose to run their own dogs in a national event format. Further, I think it is important to encourage Amateurs to run their own dogs in AKC HT's at all levels. -Paul 

Frequently Asked Questions about the Master Amateur Retriever Club, MARC.
Club
• Did the Master National Retriever Club, MNRC, create this club?
• No. While the MNRC talked about the concept, it did not create the club.
• Is this club part of the MNRC?
• No, the MARC is a separate club with different By-Laws.
• What is the MARC purpose?
• To conduct a quality event once a year, showcasing amateur handled dogs.
• How do I become a member of the MARC?
• The MARC is made up of member club who pay an annual dues.
• How does my club become a member and how much are the dues?
• The MARC will send an invitation and form to the clubs and the dues are $75 a year.
• When are the meetings?
• The MARC will hold an annual amateur club delegate meeting prior to the event.
Qualifying
• When is the qualifying year and event?
• Qualifying starts March 1st through the end of February with the event between April and
June.
• How does a dog get qualiﬁed?
• The dog must pass 6 master tests at member clubs and was handled by an amateur as
deﬁned by the AKC.
• Can you provide an example?
• Yes, a dog run exclusive run by an amateur could qualify for both events, subject to the
qualifying time period with 6 passes. But a dog with 6 passes, 5 by amateur and 1 by a
professional, would only qualify for the MNRC. A dog with 7 passes, 6 by an amateur and 1
by a professional, would qualify for both events.
• Can a professional bring amateurs to run his clients dogs?
• The MARC does not condone this action and will limit the number of dogs an amateur can
handle that are not wholly owned by the handler or his/her immediate family.j
• What is the limit?
• Two
• Is there a limit to the number of dogs an amateur can run?
• No, as long as you wholly own your dog or with your immediate family.
• How does this effect the weekend event?
• This will not change the weekend event. The weekend club will be run the same way as it
has. The new club and qualiﬁcation does not change any standards from the AKC.
• How will the handler be tracked for qualiﬁcations?
• The member clubs will track and send in who handled the dog at there event. This can be
collected by the ﬁeld marshall sheet, turned into the HT Secretary , who will mark the
catalog or electronic system.
• Will another marked catalog have to sent in?
• No, the MARC is working with the current catalog recipients to record the data.
Title
• Is there a title with the new club?
• Currently there will be a ribbon and award for completing the event with a club title after
two passes. The MARC will work with the AKC to explore a title after three passes.
• If there is not a AKC title why should I enter?
• Any title created will be retroactive for any dogs that pass.
Misc
• Can I run in both the MNRC and MARC events?
• Yes, if the handler qualiﬁes and is able to commit the time.
• Will the event complete 6 series?
• Yes, with the smaller projected size, the event shall have the equivalent of two weekend
master tests.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Thank you Paul.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

paul young said:


> Hopefully, this will help to clear up some of the confusion regarding this new venue. I think this is a great opportunity for Amateurs who choose to run their own dogs in a national event format. Further, I think it is important to encourage Amateurs to run their own dogs in AKC HT's at all levels. -Paul
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions about the Master Amateur Retriever Club, MARC.
> Club
> •


Paul,

The Q & A you have is from a draft document and is not current. Please stay tuned to the website www.masteramateur.com for more information. The site is under construction but will include an updated and more accurate FAQ. To address one issue, there will be a limit to the number of dogs a non-owner can run at the annual invitational. Currently that limit is 3. There is currently no limit on the number of dogs that can be run by an amateur who is the sole owner, or immediate family member of the owner, of the dogs. There is no change to weekend tests other than the recording of amatuer handled master passes. 

Thanks for the interest and support.

Bob Swift


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

BrettG said:


> Can a club be a member of MART and host an AM only master test?


The tests would still be AKC tests, subject to AKC rules, so unless AKC changes to allow an AM only MH, no. Probably no reason a club could chose to be a member of only the MARC and not the MNRC, though and only have its passes qualify for that one if it choosed.


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

Still lots of open items to work through and I wish the MARC the best of luck in successfully resolving these items and others that will pop up.

Previous suggestions on overcrowding and difficulty in getting into any Master test with limited entries often mentioned dropping the membership to the MNRC as a solution as many PROS will bypass that event trying to get dogs qualified for the MN. 

I belong to 2 clubs on the Front Range and I believe that 1 will vote to join the MARC and keep the MNRC. I suspect that the other will have a lively discussion about dropping the MNRC and only belonging to the MARC to keep entries low for our tests. Our spring test hasn't filled since we went from a double Master to a single master, but our fall test is usually filled early. That may change for the better or worse, depending on your viewpoint, if the club decides to only be part of the MARC.

I believe this may have the same impact with the "better" option of being able to qualify for the MARC event without the "pros taking up all the passes".


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Ah back to 1984 when the world was new and full of promise for Hunt Tests....Go MARC..I was a FTer who supported it back than before it morphed into the current version. I saw it as AAA ball to prep some for moving up to FTs. Many disagreed.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I love the idea from a personal standpoint. Hunt tests were designed by the original 'hunt test organization', NAHRA, as a way for people to continue to train, test, and improve their hunting dogs. http://www.nahra3.info/HistoryProject/NNV-I1-051984.pdf. 

It would be nice if AKC had some way of promoting that (owner/trainer/handler) intent with it's hunt test program.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

There is no way any organization can police who actually trained the dog. If you have any ideas how AKC can police this I'm sure they would welcome your input.

As far as the original intent you're probably right, but neither did the original framers have any idea the hunt test sport would get this big. Things change, we move on and adapt as best we can.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Thomas D said:


> There is no way any organization can police who actually trained the dog. If you have any ideas how AKC can police this I'm sure they would welcome your input.


I wholeheartedly agree. It would be impossible. The idealist would like it, the realist knows it would never happen.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Has the HTAC suggested a definition of Amateur to be added to HT Regulations?
Hopefully it will be more clear than the FT definition.

Tim


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

I have some questions, will the clubs then run a pro test and a am. test. it seems to me that would be a pain for the clubs having to get more judges . also does that mean the am. test will be judged looser? will the tests be easier? just curious


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

pat addis said:


> I have some questions, will the clubs then run a pro test and a am. test. it seems to me that would be a pain for the clubs having to get more judges . also does that mean the am. test will be judged looser? will the tests be easier? just curious


 The way it was laid out for us was:

First year, no membership dues and a Master pass at any AKC member or licensed event will count toward the MARC requirements. The AKC has or will be signing off on this new national club and master passes must follow AKC guidelines. 

I presume after the shakeout period, a club will need to be a MARC club in order for passes to count. NO WAY does this mean a pro/am test.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Have you read the announcement?


----------



## Brad 3 (Apr 16, 2011)

I personally think the best way to monitor who is running the dog in the Am and to keep the Pro's from bringing handlers to run there customer dogs it should be Owner/Handler only.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I just want to be clear I understand. I think I know the answer... but some other comments have confused me (which, truly doesn't require much.)

To be clear, the issue is that the HANDLER of the dog must be an amateur (preferably owner). The rules do NOT imply that the dog cannot be TRAINED (partially, fully, or in cooperation with the owner) by a pro.

Yes?


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

1tulip said:


> I just want to be clear I understand. I think I know the answer... but some other comments have confused me (which, truly doesn't require much.)
> 
> To be clear, the issue is that the HANDLER of the dog must be an amateur (preferably owner). The rules do NOT imply that the dog cannot be TRAINED (partially, fully, or in cooperation with the owner) by a pro.
> 
> Yes?


Yes, handled only at the event to obtain a qualifying score. Dog can be trained by monkeys.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Golddogs said:


> Yes, handled only at the event to obtain a qualifying score. Dog can be trained by monkeys.


And frequently is


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

If I were to try it w/out the help I have here... the monkey's would have a better dog than I would.


----------



## labsnducks (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out in the future.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

With all those dogs needing 6 more passes with an Amatuer handler to get qualified for both. Which I'm sure a lot not all but a lot will want to do. How do you see this affecting the already impossible situation of getting entered in Master tests ?


----------



## Margo Ellis (Jan 19, 2003)

That is the question that comes to my mind as well. Will this help the weekend count? Push it to the breaking point?


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

So 54 & 55 ask good questions 

Just to be clear the founding group of MARC considered should an amateur stake be added to the weekend event. The conclusion was no added stake. An added stake would put more pressure on clubs for grounds, help and judges. The resolution was to maintain the weekend event as we know it and run together 

For the added pressure question : an amateur qualifying at a weekend event would receive credit for the MNRC and the MARC events 

I didn't think when we were in Montana last summer the ht were over crowded. 
We entered Treasure State and Helena. Each had double masters and I think the low number was 13 master entries and 21 was the high. 

More on MARC coming soon via a website and another email 
Dk


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

No disrespect to the new club but IMO it wasn't created to help the weekend tests. Not saying it was created to hurt

One thing to help the weekend tests is to make the test two tough series, judge to a higher standard, have two tests per weekend and allow only one MH entry per weekend. You're accommodating 2x the entries for the cost of 1 more series.
How many dogs go out in third series?


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Tom you have a valid point about the standard however the Akc would likely say we have a standard and we at the weekend events ( judges) see different things. 
As an example what one judge may call a break, cast refusal, failure to enter rough cover and so on another might not see that way. If the standard raises too high then your an outcast in the judging pool. Hence if your pass rate is below a certain arbitrary number it's bad 

Some could argue the rise in pro trained dogs is that the standard has been raised. My personal belief is the AKC and MNRC gets lots of grief over the MNH title and plate for the wrong reasons. The dogs and handlers are better trained today than 15 years ago ( pick a date) A part of that reason is our professional trainers working hard to get the dogs ready. 
Just one example is the PB blind. 10 years ago one never saw that on a ht but today you better be trained. This is not bad stuff but evolution of our dogs. The ht judging has apprenticeships, handling requirements and all these hoops ( in my mine ) have helped us up the standard 

Modifying the Akc rules for limiting entries or such is above my pay grade. 
Many of us would like something to be done however for whatever reason the AKC has shown a reluctance to change 

A fan of the sport just as you and many others are!
Dk


----------



## Scott R. (Mar 13, 2012)

Thomas D said:


> No disrespect to the new club but IMO it wasn't created to help the weekend tests. Not saying it was created to hurt
> 
> One thing to help the weekend tests is to make the test two tough series, judge to a higher standard, have two tests per weekend and allow only one MH entry per weekend. You're accommodating 2x the entries for the cost of 1 more series.
> How many dogs go out in third series?


I'm all for a tough test, but setting up tests to fail (or pass) dogs in an attempt to manipulate pass/fail percentages should never be part of the conversation. Set up tough but fair tests and judge to the established standard. After that, let pass/fail percentages be what they are. Yes I know that is an idealistic view of the judging process but it's what we should strive for. We can do a lot of things to help weekend tests but that's not one of them.

There are a lot of reasons that dogs don't get dropped in the 3rd series. Blinds are often done, breaks have largely already occurred, walk up is often done, honor is often finished, older more experienced dogs remain, etc. It's not necessarily because the judges are just trying to pass dogs. I've certainly bombed out in the 3rd a few times.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Dave Kress said:


> So 54 & 55 ask good questions
> 
> Just to be clear the founding group of MARC considered should an amateur stake be added to the weekend event. The conclusion was no added stake. An added stake would put more pressure on clubs for grounds, help and judges. The resolution was to maintain the weekend event as we know it and run together
> 
> ...


Great Job David and company Been a long time coming
BillBlochowiak


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

"There are a lot of reasons that dogs don't get dropped in the 3rd series. Blinds are often done, breaks have largely already occurred, walk up is often done, honor is often finished, older more experienced dogs remain, etc. "

So why have it?

I will add that this isn't my original idea. When I initially heard it, I didn't like it, but the more I think about it, I do.

How long has the numerical averages been around. Maybe they should get bumped up by 1 each.


----------



## Scott R. (Mar 13, 2012)

Thomas D said:


> "There are a lot of reasons that dogs don't get dropped in the 3rd series. Blinds are often done, breaks have largely already occurred, walk up is often done, honor is often finished, older more experienced dogs remain, etc. "
> 
> So why have it?
> 
> ...


I honestly completely misread your original post. I now see you meant to have a 2 series master test rather than 3. I've heard this idea floated around and it's interesting. I'm not against exploring it as an option.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

getting off the subject here but the reason for 3 series should be self-explanatory by the rules. 

land series

land/water series 

water series. 

to fully test "a truly finished" retriever 

to most its a tough concept to comprehend 

continue !!!! lol.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I know what the rules are but I am saying they should be changed if nothing is accomplished by a third series other than fulfilling a requirement.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> I know what the rules are but I am saying they should be changed if nothing is accomplished by a third series other than fulfilling a requirement.


my words of encouragement at the handlers meetings 

"If your dog has a weakness I will find it." make take me 3 series but I will find it !!!!

come run under me or co-judge with me Tom, I promise u will not be disappointed !!!! lol 

FYI Tom I don't get asked to judge much I'm told my test are to tough for most MH handlers. lol


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Final Flight Retrievers said:


> my words of encouragement at the handlers meetings
> 
> "If your dog has a weakness I will find it." make take me 3 series but I will find it !!!!
> 
> ...


Don't know if I would be as proud of that as you seem to be. I thought that tests and judging were to be set up to the published and agreed upon standard, not what the judge thinks it should be.
Judge shopping regards,
MP


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

2 master passes on a weekend (not running Friday) equal smart money! (Coming from a poor mans point of view)


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

What is the incentive?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Final Flight Retrievers said:


> my words of encouragement at the handlers meetings
> 
> "If your dog has a weakness I will find it." make take me 3 series but I will find it !!!!
> 
> ...


Well, in my mind the idea behind hunt tests is not to blow dogs and handlers out (pretty sure it does not say in the regs to 'find the weaknesses') I personally would hate to judge with or run under a judge with that mentality..Tough is fine, but fair..not challenging after challenging after challenging set up... They aren't supposed to be mini field trials. They are supposed to be 'hunting tests'... So, if your description of your judging and test set up is accurate, I can see why you would not be asked to judge often.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

"your dog has a weakness I will find it." make take me 3 series but I will find it !!!!"

With that attitude I probably would not judge with you. IMO there are some things that are
Better left unsaid. Bragging to handlers of your abilities to expose their weakness is not something I could be part of. Any smart handler can look at their scoresheet and see their weakness (or what a judge thought their weakness was).

But you seem to be doing well, so who am I to criticize.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

I know where u all are coming from and I'm sure 80% of the HT community would agre with u, but I like the 20% that doesn't ....... lol 

I got this thread a lot off course and I apologize .... 

I wish nothing but the best for the MARC.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Since a pass by an amateur would count for both the MNRC and the MARC we might only notice that Pro's are running less dogs at the weekend hunt tests. We might find that the long waits for the Pro's in Senior and Junior are much shorter as Pro's will be running less dogs. 
We may also find we need more parking space at the stakes with more people running their own dogs. 

2 series in a 1 day Master test might require changing the 60 dog limit to a 50 dog limit or maybe 45? And require all series be a triple?


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

Why limit the number of dogs an amateur can run at the MARC when they can run as many as they want to at a weekend test?
If I can qualify say 10 or 15 dogs for the Master Am why can I not run them at the Master AM National?


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

I suspect they have learned something. hey


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

Obviously we monitor who is a pro and who is an amateur. There have have been several instances over the years when it has been apparent that an individual was training retrievers for other people, although entering events as an amateur. The objection was made to AKC and subsequently corrected with information provided by the opposing party. Simply have a rule of a dog's year's absence from a pro in order to qualify as an amateur trained dog. After all a rule exists that a pro that wishes to return to the amateur ranks can after an announcement and year's absence from training client dogs.


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

Wayne Nissen said:


> Obviously we monitor who is a pro and who is an amateur. There have have been several instances over the years when it has been apparent that an individual was training retrievers for other people, although entering events as an amateur. The objection was made to AKC and subsequently corrected with information provided by the opposing party. Simply have a rule of a dog's year's absence from a pro in order to qualify as an amateur trained dog. After all a rule exists that a pro that wishes to return to the amateur ranks can after an announcement and year's absence from training client dogs.


From what I see they do not say anything about who trained the dogs but just who ran them in the test. Is this correct or not?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

That's the way I read it and as it should be.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

CanAmMan said:


> Why limit the number of dogs an amateur can run at the MARC when they can run as many as they want to at a weekend test?
> If I can qualify say 10 or 15 dogs for the Master Am why can I not run them at the Master AM National?


There is no limit to how many dogs you own that you may run at the MasterAm from what I have seen here. There is only a limit of 3 dogs that you do not own that you may run at the MasterAm. So if you own 15 dogs and qualify them all, you may run them and 3 others for a friend. The 3 dog rule does not apply to your wife or children's (immediate family) owned dogs, so if you own and qual 15 and your wife owns and quals 10 and your kid owns and quals 5 and your neighbor wants you to take his 3 dogs you would then be running 33 dogs 15+10+5+3=33. The 3 dog limit is only on dogs that are not yours or your immediate family owned, so if your 20 friends want you to take their dogs you have to pick the 3 from your friends that you take. 
You may qualify your 20 friends dogs for the MasterAm by running them all in weekend tests though, if you do you may find them looking hard at wether you are truly an amateur or a pro..... 
That is my take from what was posted so if I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

Good luck getting 3 dogs entered much less 33 ! I cant even get my 1 entered half the time. And I would say that is fixing to get worse, with another "new" title for everyone to chase. :-(


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Mike Sale said:


> Good luck getting 3 dogs entered much less 33 ! I cant even get my 1 entered half the time. And I would say that is fixing to get worse, with another "new" title for everyone to chase. :-(


Well it should actually not make entering a weekend test harder.. The dog only needs 6 passes to qualify for both events as long as both are done by an amatuer. There is no advantage to have a pro run your dog in 6 more tests it would be redundant and a waste of money. Now amatuers might need a few more entries to get 6 passes...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I hope you're right.
However, you're making several assumptions. One of which is after a dog gets 6 they stop entering tests.
We know that does not always happen.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> Well it should actually not make entering a weekend test harder.. The dog only needs 6 passes to qualify for both events as long as both are done by an amatuer. .


But clubs will now have a "national" event in their time zone twice as often and entries in the MN host region tend to be up during that qualifying year. We will see!


Tim


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

Do you think people who pay pros to train and run their dogs for whatever reason are going to stop doing that just because it would be redundant ? I think they will keep doing it no matter what. And show up atleast 6 times a year and pull their dog off of the pros truck and run it themselves or have a "friend" do it so they can get both titles. Same as FT. I don't have anything against these people and if I could afford it I would be doing the same exact thing ?


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> There is no limit to how many dogs you own that you may run at the MasterAm from what I have seen here. There is only a limit of 3 dogs that you do not own that you may run at the MasterAm. So if you own 15 dogs and qualify them all, you may run them and 3 others for a friend. The 3 dog rule does not apply to your wife or children's (immediate family) owned dogs, so if you own and qual 15 and your wife owns and quals 10 and your kid owns and quals 5 and your neighbor wants you to take his 3 dogs you would then be running 33 dogs 15+10+5+3=33. The 3 dog limit is only on dogs that are not yours or your immediate family owned, so if your 20 friends want you to take their dogs you have to pick the 3 from your friends that you take.
> You may qualify your 20 friends dogs for the MasterAm by running them all in weekend tests though, if you do you may find them looking hard at wether you are truly an amateur or a pro.....
> That is my take from what was posted so if I am wrong I am sure I will be corrected.


From what I read, you are limited if you or your family do not SOLELY own the dog. Legitimate co-ownership of dogs will be treated the same as running someone else's dog. Is that correct? I don't think it will affect many dogs/handlers. I just don't like it's exclusion of legitimate co-owners.

John


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mike Sale said:


> Do you think people who pay pros to train and run their dogs for whatever reason are going to stop doing that just because it would be redundant ? I think they will keep doing it no matter what. And show up atleast 6 times a year and pull their dog off of the pros truck and run it themselves or have a "friend" do it so they can get both titles. Same as FT. I don't have anything against these people and if I could afford it I would be doing the same exact thing ?


I agree with this assessment - I do not think this will help improve the participation of absentee owners, about the only thing it will do is give those Ams who are active a little carrot, assuming they can get entered.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I think it is a good idea from some great people! Getting owners involved is a positive step for everyone. Pro looks better because clients actually learn how to handle a dog. Owners learn how much fun the game is. Hopefully clubs gain new helpers.

Never hunted where someone brought a pro to handle their dog.


----------



## Randy Bohn (Jan 16, 2004)

If the owners would tell their pros that they're running the dogs in the contests you wouldn't need another club, I still don't get the idea...Randy


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Randy Bohn said:


> If the owners would tell their pros that they're running the dogs in the contests you wouldn't need another club, I still don't get the idea...Randy


Here it is folks.....plain and simple.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Randy Bohn said:


> If the owners would tell their pros that they're running the dogs in the contests you wouldn't need another club, I still don't get the idea...Randy


I agree Randy. I don't see where this new club will alleviate the entry problem in a weekend test. Could make it worse even.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

The current MN with all of the abundance of entries had me waiting 2-1/2 days to run the first and 2 additional days to run the second series. I would be interested in the MARC in the hopes that it will be a smaller event and maybe will take numbers from the MN.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Be happy you got to run the second. Many didn't.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Here it is folks.....plain and simple.


What's "plain and simple" in a pros mind might not be in an ams mind.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Mike Sale said:


> Do you think people who pay pros to train and run their dogs for whatever reason are going to stop doing that just because it would be redundant ? I think they will keep doing it no matter what. And show up atleast 6 times a year and pull their dog off of the pros truck and run it themselves or have a "friend" do it so they can get both titles. Same as FT. I don't have anything against these people and if I could afford it I would be doing the same exact thing ?


 If someone is paying a pro and wants 12 passes or 30 passes durring a qualifying period they are chasing a different title, they are going for MH 20 etc and this amatuer club won't affect their entries at all, except they won't be in any weekend tests durring the 2 national events. If they are only going for the Marc and MNRC titles getting more than 6 passes is a waste of money and time the dog could be further trained..


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Or they could be subjecting the dog to more test environments to better prepare them for MN/MA. To most people the MH30 or whatever means nothing and is not why they keep entering tests.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

I don't think people who are paying a pro trainer year round AND entering 30 Master tests a year are worried about wasting money ? That's all I'm trying to say. Not trying to pick a fight or slander anyone who can afford to do so. Like I said If I could I would too.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Brad B said:


> I agree Randy. I don't see where this new club will alleviate the entry problem in a weekend test. Could make it worse even.


How about after the MARC gets going, clubs do not join the MNRC but join the MARC! Surely, that would cut down the weekend entries for that club


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Mike Sale I totally enjoy training my dogs and running my dogs. If I had the money i would still train and run my dogs. In hunt tests I stand just as good a chance of passing as a hunt test pro. Now field trials different story.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Does the amateur have to run all 3 series or just one of the series and let the pro take over? Just think of the politics the sport will have now....

/Paul


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

LabskeBill said:


> How about after the MARC gets going, clubs do not join the MNRC but join the MARC! Surely, that would cut down the weekend entries for that club


I think you've got the idea.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Read the announcement.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

moscowitz said:


> Mike Sale I totally enjoy training my dogs and running my dogs. If I had the money i would still train and run my dogs. In hunt tests I stand just as good a chance of passing as a hunt test pro. Now field trials different story.


Yes, but you don't stand a very good chance getting entered ?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Mike just have to work more clubs. Now master Nationals is for pro's because of the time commitment. They can show up a week before and train and then waste the days to run. Amat cannot committ that long. Hopefully Amat national will think that out.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Won't those who can still do pre national training in the test area. Don't think this new club will affect that any.

What happens at the National Am?


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

So i have a MN dog and I handle him in MN when possible but used a pro when the event is out side of the southeast. No way I can take two weeks off and the cost is way higher for 1 or 2 dogs. I am not sure I understand what the point of this new amateur event is. Say it ends up being 300 dogs you are likely to get flights of 100-150 so it will still be a full week anyway. Even being a day or two shorter most handlers like me would not be able to travel outside of our region to attend. Plus you will have to deal with the extra qualification stuff. So I don't see how this will make it more accessible. This might sound pretty negative but it seems like this event is going to limit the event to the retired or wealthy handler, kind of the old guard. It feels like this movement it an attempt to create a event with limit participation rather to provide an additional avenue for handlers.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Maybe the new club isn't for you.

It isn't all about the national events.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Pat C. why are you hiring a pro for hunt tests? I can see if you ran your dog in field trials and used a pro . But hunt test. Why would a hunt test title be that important or more important than just you and the dog. Don't get it.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

The creation of the Master Amateur Retriever Club will give the local weekend clubs a new option for their members. Now the local clubs will be able to look at the Master National Retriever Club or the Master Amateur Retriever Club and decide for themselves which they want to join or they may choose to not join either national organization. The choices they make will have a direct impact on the size of the entry they receive for their local events. Some clubs may choose to keep the status quo and continue to deal with entry limits and added fees. For local clubs that choose to drop the MNRC in favor of the MARC it may bring an end to the need for entry limits while still offering the Amateur handlers the opportunity to pursue a "National" event if they choose to do so.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> The creation of the Master Amateur Retriever Club will give the local weekend clubs a new option for their members. Now the local clubs will be able to look at the Master National Retriever Club or the Master Amateur Retriever Club and decide for themselves which they want to join or they may choose to not join either national organization. The choices they make will have a direct impact on the size of the entry they receive for their local events. Some clubs may choose to keep the status quo and continue to deal with entry limits and added fees. For local clubs that choose to drop the MNRC in favor of the MARC it may bring an end to the need for entry limits while still offering the Amateur handlers the opportunity to pursue a "National" event if they choose to do so.


Or it could hurt them. People may only attend events where the pass counts towards both national events. Creates new hurdles for both clubs and handlers. Yipppeeekyyyayyyy

/Paul


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Or it could hurt them. People may only attend events where the pass counts towards both national events. Creates new hurdles for both clubs and handlers. Yipppeeekyyyayyyy
> 
> /Paul


Well, that kind of depends upon the club. Some clubs are dependent on the pro whose business model is centered around chasing passes for the Master National, Some clubs are dependent on the individual amateur and small pro whose goals are a Junior, Senior or Master Title. So each clubs goals and motivations are unique and tied to the aspirations of their membership. 

As far as our specific club is concerned, there is far more interest in moving on to the Qual after the MH is completed rather than pursuit if the Master National.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I have a feeling that the MARC Invitational will be very much like the MN with the exception of the person standing with the dog on the line. When the national event is 3000 miles away, transporting the dogs while maintaining them physically and mentally has to be done with frequent stops for light training whenever possible. Ideally, it would mean this trip across the country would conclude a week in advance so that training could be done in the terrain, vegetation and conditions in which the event will take place. That kind of commitment pretty much "takes a village", or at least some friends along the way. If you're still working full time, that's several weeks of vacation and "sick" days (ahem, cough, cough). 

Of course, when the event is in an individual's neck of the woods... sure, it's much more doable. But a pro with several dogs and clients who are serious participants... I'll bet those pros will be significantly involved.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

if that is the case maybe it will become a smaller more manageable group at the MARC annual event. However, we are assuming the annual event will be moved each year. Maybe it will be in one central location. Who knows.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Oh, I hope not. Unless they do it in Fallon, NV. Our dogs can hammer marks and blinds through sage brush and sand. Of course, if there is another 7 year drought, the dogs will do water blinds through dust.


----------



## 1goodog (May 3, 2013)

This is a welcome option for someone like me as a long range goal. The MNH simply seemed out of reach. Its gotten to large and with the number of pros running dogs, or folks who have pros train but show up to run their dogs at the Master National, there is no true resolve.


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

Why all the negativity on this new venture? Give this group a chance to prove themselves. I know three of the board members extremely well. They are some of the finest amateurs I know. They have been big players in the MNRC and retriever games for years. They fully realize there are problems in the MNRC and hope to not make the same mistakes. I trust their vision. How about we all do our part to support this new club and event and wait and see what develops rather than being so negative right away.
Regardless of the venue, field trials or hunt teata, in order to compete on the national stage it takes a lot of time and money for the handler/owner. If it was easy everyone would do it. 
And for this who say AKC just wants more money, I don't believe that at all. Retriever field events don't make hardly any money for the AKC. The breed, obedience, agility and puppy registration are by far the cash cows of the AKC. The amount of funds generated by field event entry fees, title certificates, and bestowing titles on retrievers are a blip on the map. Of course AKC needs to charge some sort of fee. There are field reps and office staff that earn salaries. Do you think the record keeping and mailing certificates are automated and sent out without being handled by a human being that needs to get paid?
Be reasonable people. Everything we do in this game involves someone or somebody that needs to get paid whether it be a local club putting on a test or an office worker schlepping around paperwork.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Well said........


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Thomas D said:


> if that is the case maybe it will become a smaller more manageable group at the MARC annual event. However, we are assuming the annual event will be moved each year. Maybe it will be in one central location. Who knows.


Tom,

The annual Master Amateur Invitational will rotate across regions much as the MN. The MAI will start in the east in 2017 when the MN will be in Texas. So there won't be any overlap on grounds in any year. The anticipated smaller size of the MAI means that there are far more suitable locations/grounds available. More information will be on the MARC website which we hope will go live later this week. www.masteramateur.com

Bob Swift


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> Tom,
> 
> The annual Master Amateur Invitational will rotate across regions much as the MN. The MAI will start in the east in 2017 when the MN will be in Texas. So there won't be any overlap on grounds in any year. The anticipated smaller size of the MAI means that there are far more suitable locations/grounds available. More information will be on the MARC website which we hope will go live later this week. www.masteramateur.com
> 
> Bob Swift


Mr. Swift... Have there been any thoughts to how the timing of the annual event might integrate with that of the MN? I gotta believe some folks might want to run both. Crazy I know, but I'm sure there are dog-a-holics out there who will be thinking about it. Not me, of course...(cough, cough). Ahem... but some folks are that irrational about these sorts of things.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

It is my understanding the MARC is a separate club with no cross over. Therefore they will schedule their events so that they fit their constituents. This is very exciting to have an event that is smaller and more user friendly. No knock on the Master National because I plan on running that event as well. Hats off to the officers and board for such a well thought out program.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

1tulip said:


> Mr. Swift... Have there been any thoughts to how the timing of the annual event might integrate with that of the MN? I gotta believe some folks might want to run both. Crazy I know, but I'm sure there are dog-a-holics out there who will be thinking about it. Not me, of course...(cough, cough). Ahem... but some folks are that irrational about these sorts of things.


The Master Invitational will run in the spring - April to June - so as to not conflict with the MN, or with hunting season. It's been pointed out that an early spring date might be disadvantageous to those stuck in the northern tundras but any date will present conflicts to some folks. It was thought a spring date would present the fewest conflicts. 

Bob Swift


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

We'll manage. By April we'll have them tuned up. I think that sounds like a good plan.


----------



## AWSUE (Aug 10, 2010)

Tuned up by April? Not if you live in Minnesota.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

As an Amateur Trainer, I like the idea, gives a handler with 1-2 dogs, an option to run a National event, and perhaps, not have to wait 2 days to run a dog, while moving people around to accommodate 20-30 dogs ran by a single person, with about 1-3 of such persons in each flight. Should be a National event with much less dogs, Akin to NAHRA invitational, or HRC Grand where at least the number of dogs a single handler can run is limited. Now the only impact I can see on the weekend test. Is it appeal to me as a amateur handler and thus I might want to go, which requires me running more tests, which I usually don't run after a dog titles. Puts more handlers into the mix for those limited master test spots, which might be a down side for getting into tests, but also brings in more handlers overall, and might keep a few people who retire their dogs from HT, helping and working at tests.


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

From MARC website "​Entry Express will track all qualifications. For events that use Entry Express the process will be automatic. The handler will identify as an amateur when entering the event and results will automatically be tabulated. "

Therefore we as judges can we ask the handler if Amateur or Pro and mark our books accordingly since we must also keep them for record keeping? Just because its listed on EE that the handler was going to be an Am doesn't mean that will be the case... Thoughts?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Troy Tilleraas said:


> From MARC website "​Entry Express will track all qualifications. For events that use Entry Express the process will be automatic$4.50 AND NOW FOR CLUBS THAT DON'T USE EE YOU STILL GET TO PAY EE $4.50. The handler will identify as an amateur when entering the event and results will automatically be tabulated. "
> 
> Therefore we as judges can we ask the handler if Amateur or Pro and mark our books accordingly since we must also keep them for record keeping? Just because its listed on EE that the handler was going to be an Am doesn't mean that will be the case... Thoughts?


Gotta love the warm and fuzzy family atmosphere and Co-operative attitude of EE


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Should EE keep these records for free?


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Great question #123 or Troy . 
I believe the concept is judges judge 
The handlers will indicate via the entry their status and that will also be in the catalog 
If there happens to be an error somewhere likely the gallery will inform all 
The ht secretary will do as they always did as they enter the qualifiers after the event. 
There will be drop down box where one ( all) can see the qualifications. It should work just fine with no additional effort by the ht sec. Or judges 
Hope this helps 
Dk


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> Should EE keep these records for free?


These records have been maintained for decades without a charge for them. 
EE gets paid for what they do every time we enter a dog.
If you want to make the case that EE should get $4., 50 for every dog that is entered via another entry service for the fact that that EE tabulates and is the "OFFICIAL STOREKEEPER" of info that is actually gathered by the club then go right ahead, I can't wait for your argument.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

My opinion is that if you don't use their service it is reasonable to expect to pay for record keeping.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> My opinion is that if you don't use their service it is reasonable to expect to pay for record keeping.


Tom answer these questions;

1) Who has been the record keeper of this information up until recently when EE became {in their press releases own convoluted English}_ (See Entry Express Terms of Service for more specific details, __as it’s the official legal requirement for its use __in this regard.) ?

2) Who is listed as the owner of EE? :....... who now curiously gets $4.50 per dog minimum of {$250}for every dog entered in a test that uses an entry service other than the aforementioned EE 

3) Is your answer to the first two questions now getting paid $4.50 per dog {minimum of $250.00} for doing what they used to do for free?
4) Who is doing the lions share of the work required to verify the Amatuer or Pro status of contestants. Is it the club members working their asses off doing the hundreds of other duties putting on a trial entails and who get paid NOTHING , or is it EE who gets paid a minimum of $250 for tabulating the results of the work of the unpaid club members? 

5)Do you see any issues with self serving, or self dealing or restraint of trade, or anti trust, monopolistic protectionist practices or anything else?



_


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Mjh
On this beautiful Sunday morning in South Ga I really don't need to be cross examined by one who always sees the bad in whatever is posted on RTF.
The old adage off wrestling with a pig comes to mind.
Have a nice day.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> If there happens to be an error somewhere likely the gallery will inform all


That much I know is true.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Mjh
> On this beautiful Sunday morning in South Ga I really don't need to be cross examined by one who always sees the bad in whatever is posted on RTF.
> The old adage off wrestling with a pig comes to mind.
> Have a nice day.


Tom, it really was/is a beautiful day in South Ga, isn't it? The dogs enjoyed their morning workout, and now it is my duty to go pick up "trophy" pine cones for my wife.

All of this stuff reminds me of a dog cartoon I recently saw...the doctor is a dog and his patient is a dog with a head shaped liked a fire hydrant...the doc says to his patient..."I really can't treat you as I have a conflict of interest"

I really wish all the conflicts of interests would give way to what is in the best interests of our dogs, and ultimately our sport.

Enjoy the day!

Carolina by 17!!


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

For what it is worth, the Master Amateur R.C. is not on FB.
I could be wrong, but could not find it.


----------



## Steve Thornton (Oct 11, 2012)

As an amateur I too like the premise. I wish there was something about like a stipulation of only amateur trained for a period like one year.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Amateur trained is impossible enforce.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Steve Thornton said:


> As an amateur I too like the premise. I wish there was something about like a stipulation of only amateur trained for a period like one year.


Why does that even matter? In hunt tests you compete against a standard, not the other dogs and handlers.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Amateur trained is impossible enforce.


and Pro status is any different??? I would bet as many if not more people know if you sent your dog to someone for training as compared the financials of the person, and their family, doing the training. 

We are all on the honor system.

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> Why does that even matter? In hunt tests you compete against a standard, not the other dogs and handlers.


 Then why have an amateur only event?

/Paul


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Why am only? How many true amateurs can take 3 wks off to run a national? The idea to get numbers down to manageable is excellent.


----------



## Black N Gold (Jan 14, 2009)

Just an idea, instead of thinking of ways the MARC will have problems...Volunteer and help


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

What about this... instead of having a MN and a MAN what if they held 2 MN a year, one in the east and one in the west and put a stipulation that you can only run in one. Just a thought.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Makes to much sense. It will never work!


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

moscowitz said:


> Makes to much sense. It will never work!


Yep, don't want to be anything remotely like hrc.


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

Black N Gold said:


> Just an idea, instead of thinking of ways the MARC will have problems...Volunteer and help




AMEN to that! Rather than going around poking holes in the plan, how about everyone work hard to see to the success of this new venture. If you can't say anything nice...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

BrettG said:


> Yep, don't want to be anything remotely like hrc.


.......and the grand has its own faults.

Just look at the proposal submitted last year to go to a 6 of 8 qualifying. 75 no and 36 yes. 66 clubs did not vote.

Proposal to exempt HOF dogs from qualifying. Passed but 64 clubs did not vote. That's approx 25%.

If you feel 2 MN per year would solve the problem, get your club to submit a proposal. Bet you 50 bucks it won't pass.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

CanAmMan said:


> What about this... instead of having a MN and a MAN what if they held 2 MN a year, one in the east and one in the west and put a stipulation that you can only run in one. Just a thought.


The resources are stretched to the max trying to put on one a year.
And your solution is to put on two?


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Thanks to all that have worked so hard to get the MARC off the ground. The officers and BOD's is like a who's who list of MNRC & HT founders and leaders. All have vast experience and knowledge of the MNRC and HT games. Knowing most of them I believe their mission is to advance the HT games for the entire community. It appears they are working through this huge task trying not to disadvantage the clubs or the MN. I hope everyone supports them .

Bob Neipert


----------

