# Master Extraordinaire ???



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

We can hash out the details later, just philosophically would you support the idea or not.


----------



## mossy (Dec 9, 2003)

Chris, would this be like the UKC grand?


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

mossy said:


> Chris, would this be like the UKC grand?


No, just another stake at a weekend test.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

MH is enough for a hunting dog.

If someone needs more, go run FT.

Joe Miano ? who doesn?t think change is always a good answer and regularly thinks status quo is good enough.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

They already have one... it's called a Qual!

Shayne


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

I voted no....

The formula already works. Stop screwing with that part.

How many dogs that have MH titles have you seen that could not be a suitable hunting companion? Only a few in my opinion. That is what the HT program is about.

If people want a title and more and more stakes time to move on to FTs. 

The MN event is great for those that want to attend but we really don't need more stakes at the weekend test. Move onto the Q if you want a MHX title.

MAYBE that is what should be done...those dogs with MH titles and have jams (or places in the Q) GET a new title. Doesn't that cover all the arguments for those wanting "competitive" titles in the HT world and those wanting a QAA title?

WRL


----------



## Pat F. (Jan 3, 2003)

subroc said:


> MH is enough for a hunting dog.
> 
> If someone needs more, go run FT.
> 
> Joe Miano ? who doesn?t think change is always a good answer and regularly thinks status quo is good enough.


DITTO!!!!

Reo


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

subroc said:


> MH is enough for a hunting dog.


Heck Joe, a lot of folks think a SH is more than enough hunting dog.

That doesn't satisfy the ever evolving quest for "more" that many seem to have. Human nature.

Shayne, I agree the Q would be a similiar equivalent, but it's a different venue that some folks don't care to cross over to. JMPerception.


----------



## Marty N. (Nov 28, 2003)

The Master Hunter Title says it all, if another step is needed move up to FT.
Marty


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> They already have one... it's called a Qual!


Give that man a cigar!.... Or a pretty woman! :wink:


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Yes. It's not about the title, it's about another ring to reach for if you've achieved MH and don't look good in white.
What is so magic about the number 3?
JS


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

I voted "No!"

If folks want "more" all they have to do is get some testicular fortitude and run the Q. Of course...they might not take home a pretty ribbon every weekend, but when they do, it will be well worth it.

Regards,

Joe S. - who thinks a pretty ribbon in the Q comes in blue, red, yellow, white or green!


----------



## Hidden Valley (Aug 4, 2003)

*another stake*

WHY???????????????????????????????????


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

Quoted from JS on another thread :


> It's still a non-competitive event. We've just established an "upper limit", so to speak, on the master requirements like Jr and Sr (some might say we've preserved the MH requirements as they were originally intended) and upped the ante for the MHX.
> The Master National now becomes the MX National for those who want to go there. We've sorted out all those mediocre dogs that so many say shouldn't have passed, solved the numbers problem (if there is one) and *in the process we've preserved the MH for the guy who just wants to go out on weekends and get his MH title by performing to the standard. *


Must say, it sounds very convincing and a logical next step to ME.

No more mini-FTs to complain about.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> I voted "No!" If folks want "more" all they have to do is get some testicular fortitude and run the Q.


YES! He shoots, he scores! 8)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I voted yes, and I ALREADY run the Q and all the rest of them.
BTW A jam at a FT is like kissing your sister :wink: If you think you and your dog can't win on a given day ,your not ready .So save your money.
john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> A jam at a FT is like kissing your sister


I don't think so John. I still remember that first greenie in an amateur. I was on cloud nine! I FINISHED an all age stake!!! nfire: nfire: nfire: I didn't finish another one for a year either. :grab:

Now I admit with Tracker after his 4th year an all age greenie wasn't what I was after. When I got them it wasn't quite like that first one but it still gives a sense of accomplishment. Finishing is better than going out.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> BTW A jam at a FT is like kissing your sister


I am with Howard on this one. There are times when getting a JAM is pretty darn wonderful.

And it's like kissing your sister - IF she's UMA THURMAN


----------



## Jesse Higgins (Jan 3, 2003)

I voted no, mainly because of how difficult it would be for a club to add another high level test on a given weekend. It would be way too much for many clubs, and would probably negatively affect the other tests.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Never work at a weekender. Besides what else do you want a Master dog to do????

tom


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

tom said:


> .......Besides what else do you want a Master dog to do????
> 
> tom


 :lol: chuckling :lol: 

My sentiments, exactly!!

Joe Miano


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

> all they have to do is get some testicular fortitude


Dang it Joe, I just cain't do THAT.  

I voted no, cuz NFRA's already taken that step. It works, yall should try it!
Tina


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

subroc said:


> tom said:
> 
> 
> > .......Besides what else do you want a Master dog to do????
> ...


Joe
I can see it now!!!

MHX:
Multiple marks
Multiple blinds
&
Cleans all the birds for you

tom


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

subroc said:


> tom said:
> 
> 
> > .......Besides what else do you want a Master dog to do????
> ...


Oh I'm quite sure there's plenty more that COULD be done. Just by requiring no handles on marks, and a trainabilty score of 7-8 minimum would be enough, wouldn't it ? :wink:

It looks the overwhelming majority have spoken against the idea, so the question remains, how are you gonna make everyone happy, regarding the Master itself, forget the MN (who cares). Seems like a strong anti-Pro sentiment is surfacing around, in addition to the many who feel that a lot of Master tests have become mini-FTs, while the OTHER side says mediocrity and inconsistent standards exist. Where's the common ground ? I thought we had it here with the 4th stake. Guess not.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

NO handling on marks???!!!!

that's not even an eliminating fault in all-age stakes! 

a hunting companion that needed to be handled to a mark? heaven forbid! :roll: 

you guys are out of control!-paul


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> NO handling on marks???!!!!
> 
> that's not even an eliminating fault in all-age stakes!
> 
> ...


It is in the DERBY.  

Not out of control Paul, just brainstorming and bouncing ideas. No big deal.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Chris Kingrea said:


> subroc said:
> 
> 
> > tom said:
> ...



I guess I will play.

I believe that the trainability of a dog is endless. Meaning one could train a dog to do pretty much anything, obedience, agility, FT, etc.. The measure of a hunting dog is already laid out in the HT program. The top title is the MH. I think it is enough. Will tweaking it and make a more regimented performance be a better evaluation of a hunting dog? In my estimation, no. We will be evaluating something other that the solid capability of a hunting dog. This is a case where good enough to meet the standard, is enough. If someone needs more, in my estimation they are evaluating something other than a hunting dog. They are starting to go overboard and evaluate trainability beyond what is needed in a top tier hunting dog. They are starting to add an obedience component beyond what is needed in a top tier hunting dog.

Now there are many that will read this and say I am advocating mediocrity. Well no, I am advocating meeting the need of evaluating a hunting dog without all the foolishness thrown in.

My novice opinion.

Joe Miano


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

tom said:


> Cleans all the birds for you


Tom

Now if I could get the dog to clean the birds........hmmmm.......I think I'll work on him gettin' the beer first.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Joe


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

subroc,
How many sports HAVEN'T made rule changes to keep pace with higher levels of performance? Ya' know, the free throw lane wasn't always as wide as it is now. They widened it when 7-foot centers became common.
I know I'm beatin' a dead horse here and none of us on this board are going to make a difference one way or another but this whole thing fascinates me.



> The measure of a hunting dog is already laid out in the HT program. The top title is the MH.


True. The standard was written some 25 years ago and remains essentially the same.



> Will tweaking it and make a more regimented performance be a better evaluation of a hunting dog? In my estimation, no. We will be evaluating something other that the solid capability of a hunting dog.


Well, here's where I think people aren't facing facts. We are ALREADY doing that ... we just haven't made it official. How many tests did we see 25 years ago that looked like the average test we see today?
The quality of retriever performance has steadily improved and will continue to do so. Yet, T-Mac has posted some statistics that indicate the pass percentage in MH is pretty much unchanged over the years. How can that be the case if we are still testing to the standard? We are testing to a HIGHER standard, that's how.



> This is a case where good enough to meet the standard, is enough.


If you really feel that way, you should be thinking about how to preserve that "good enough" standard because just leaving the language and the system alone is not going to keep things from changing.

Dogs will continue to improve and MH tests will continue to get tougher so the pass rate will remain constant ...
OR
Dogs will continue to improve and MH tests will remain unchanged until anyone can breeze through in 6 straight and then have no place to go.

(Oh, yeah, I forgot ..... go run the Qual) :roll: 

JS
... wonderin' if we'd still be talking about this if there wasn't a foot of snow on the ground. :lol:


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Paul Young wrote:



> NO handling on marks???!!!!
> that's not even an eliminating fault in all-age stakes!


As you know, it IS a different game. Not out of the realm of possibility to go through a hunt test clean. You want the top level to reflect the top dogs, that might be something to consider. (marking is of primary importance, or something like that.)



> a hunting companion that needed to be handled to a mark? heaven forbid!


We've already gone way beyond evaluating a hunting companion. As someone suggested earlier, most folks out there on the marsh would give their eye teeth for an average SH.

JS


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm with the group. NO! For all the reasons everyone has mentioned. When I got bored with master stakes, I started running the Q and getting my butt handed to me. I still enjoy running master tests and will continue to do so along with ft, but I'm perfectly content with the system as is.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

JS

There?s the rub. You believe this is a sport that needs evolution. I believe that it is still the measure of the same hunting dog that was required 20 yeas ago. I think it is great that we, collectively, HT trainers, amateurs and pros alike, have found better ways to train dogs than when HT began. It makes our job easier. But what is needed is still the same in the field and the evaluation should be the same.

A little story that I hope makes my point.

There is a guy named Dr. Kenneth Cooper. I am pretty sure he is a Texan. Years ago he wrote the book Aerobics and essentially added the word ?aerobics? to our lexicon. His contention is that we need 20 to 30 minutes of vigorous exercise 3 to 4 times a week to maintain cardiovascular fitness (over-simplification). He also added that if you are training beyond that you are doing it for some reason other than cardiovascular fitness. Weight loss, racing, as an activity, etc..

My contention is if it is decided to change the testing parameters for the HT program, it is being done for a reason beyond the measure of a hunting dog. Obedience, trainability, etc..

I believe the MH in his current form is the measure of a hunting dog.

Joe Miano


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

subroc said:


> My contention is if it is decided to change the testing parameters for the HT program, it is being done for a reason beyond the measure of a hunting dog. Obedience, trainability, etc..
> 
> I believe the MH in his current form is the measure of a hunting dog.
> 
> Joe Miano


Joe, I would agree!

TM


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think anyone has suggested changing the Master in any way, other than to insure fair and consistant Judging.

The other suggestion was to augment, supplement, whatever, for those that chose to strive for a little better and still be judged to a Standard, granted it would be a somewhat higher standard, rather than "dog eat dog".

My suggestion was to use this non-existant MHX as the stepping stone to qualify for the Master National because of the HUGE entries being seen now. If one has a MH, super, one knows it's a good hunting dog. Now maybe just for ego, give the MHX a try in order to qualify for the National and further bragging rights.

I don't think it's an absurd idea, just an idea that needs some refinement from those that care.

Jerry


----------



## Paul-TEXAS (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe,
You are correct. Dr. Cooper is from TEXAS and owns the Cooper Clinic
here in Dallas and you are correct on his believes.
We want our dogs to achieve a certain level and that is the master
hunter satandard. Anything beyond that is a bonus. 
I'm with Shayne, that bonus is the Qual!!

Paul-TEXAS


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

Go run the qual... I liked it the first time I heard it (always been my plan). The MN is just an intermediate step in the logical progression from MH to QAA, but if the MN is just a pencil whipping party I will skip it. 

3DK


----------



## fetchitgold (Feb 28, 2003)

3 dog knight said:


> Go run the qual... I liked it the first time I heard it 3DK


Well, I was thinking I might like to try that starting next year, but....



Joe S. said:


> If folks want "more" all they have to do is get some testicular fortitude and run the Q.


Trying to figure out how I might be able to do that!!! :shock: :lol: :shock: 

And those of you who've run FTs.... I'm pretty damn proud of my first ribbon, even if it is GREEN and from a Derby! All the talk of trying to get some new blood into FTs.... just a humble suggestion, but don't be knocking my lowly green ribbon :? I'm more than happy to help and pitch in, but a little encouragement goes a long way and doesn't cost much!

Tracy


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

If you made it to the final series in any field trial, you had a day to be proud of. They don't come that often.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> How many sports HAVEN'T made rule changes to keep pace with higher levels of performance? Ya' know, the free throw lane wasn't always as wide as it is now. They widened it when 7-foot centers became common.


Yes, there have been changes in COMPETITIVE sports.

However, it seems that everyone is agreed that the HT were never INTENDED to be COMPETITIVE.

Now, I am not one of those who believe that original intent is the Holy Grail. Rather, it is clear to me that an organization or group of people can always change their minds and the rules governing their conduct.

To my mind, the better question is WHY DO SO?

No one seems to dispute that the MH Standard produces a well trained dog who is more than capable of addressing the needs of a reasonable days' hunt.

Moreover, there doesn't appear to be a great groundswell of support for implementing a higher hunting STANDARD.

To the extent that owner, handler, dog require a greater challenge - or some venue to demonstrate their heightened abilities, isn't the answer - 

GO TO A FIELD TRIAL?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> True. The standard was written some 25 years ago and remains essentially the same.


That's very true, *BUT* it sure wasn't interpeted the same. Most Master dogs of the era could not pass a Senior test today.

Without the pros involvement in our sport we would probably be still training to that 'old interpetation'

tom


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

tom said:


> [
> 
> That's very true, *BUT* it sure wasn't interpeted the same. Most Master dogs of the era could not pass a Senior test today.


But what I read in the posts on this issue is that:


(a) the judges are not following the standard; not that they are interpreting the standard differently

(b) some people believe a new standard is needed to account for improved dog performance

I am not reading - with the exception of your post - that there is an evolution in the interpretation of the standard


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

I voted against the tide. I don't see where allowing clubs the choice to offer an OPTIONAL high-level stake is a bad thing. 

Look at it this way. No matter WHAT, EVERY club will be forced to split the Master stake once the entries exceed that magical number. That means (per AKC's "unfunded mandate"), you WILL hire extra judges, you WILL use more help, you WILL have the additional expense of those extra bodies and running two Master stakes. This is NOT negotiable. 

If you had the option to hold another upper-level stake, it would accomplish the same thing, PLUS allow those who wish to continue participating in the HT game beyond the Master level. Not everyone wants to participate in the FT game, not everyone has that drive to compete, which is part of the reason Master entries continue to spiral upward. Clubs that have a history of having BIG Master stakes could opt to hold a Master and a MHX stake instead. No need to wait until entries go over the limit, with that last-minute scramble to cover TWO Master stakes when you had only planned on one. Instead, a club would PLAN to hold two upper-level stakes and be more prepared.

Plus, just exactly WHERE do you think the Pros will gravitate? The MHX stake, of course. Those who truly believe that Pros are driving up the standard in the Master (I don't subscribe to this theory, but let's pretend) should be behind this idea. After all, there would be more room in the Master stakes for amateurs if the Pros with dogs that are looking to qualify for the MN are concentrated in the MHX stake.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Personally, if any additional stakes are ever offered, I would prefer to make room at the top, rather than the current trend at AKC, which is to make dumbed-down versions available for people who want to earn titles without much effort. I wonder if we'd be having these discussions if the proposal was to create a "Pre JH" stake and title, with no delivery to hand, 30-40 yard marks in light cover, and any breed can participate, as a means of encouraging newcomers to the sport. 

Lisa


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

LVL[quote/]
Personally, if any additional stakes are ever offered, I would prefer to make room at the top, rather than the current trend at AKC, which is to make dumbed-down versions available for people who want to earn titles without much effort. I wonder if we'd be having these discussions if the proposal was to create a "Pre JH" stake and title, with no delivery to hand, 30-40 yard marks ..............


> Liaa,
> With only 20 of the several hundred member clubs, the Retriever Field Event people are not the engine that pulls the AKC train.
> We aparently have no interest in the matter as demonstrated by the fact that a post about said subject by "junbe" drew little intrest when it was first posted or when I bumped it up today
> john


----------



## Jesse Higgins (Jan 3, 2003)

> I don't see where allowing clubs the choice to offer an OPTIONAL high-level stake is a bad thing.


As far as I can tell, the primary motivation for having this MHX test level is to use it as a vehicle for increasing the level of difficulty for getting dogs to the Master National. If that is the case, this test may technically be optional, but not realistically. It's a lot like club membership in the MNRC is right now. If clubs aren't members, then passing their master tests cannot count towards meeting MN entrance requirements. Therefore, if a club is going to have master level tests it needs to be a MNRC member.

If clubs were to not hold these MHX level tests along with the others, a lot of pros who were trying to get dogs to the MN would not likely attend these tests. This would likely significantly reduce the number of entries normally provided by these pro's. For clubs that don't currently run split tests, this loss of entries would really hurt them financially. So, in order to keep their entries where they need to be, they would be "required" to have the MHX tests. And these are the same clubs that probably already spread their resources rather thin just putting on quality Junior, Senior, & Master tests. To spread them any thinner would likely affect the quality of these test, and would take the program backward where no one wants it to be.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Well, it looks like we're getting a few of the "heavy hitters" on board!! Jerry, Chris K., LVL  
Do I feel a critical mass building?!?

Ted,
I'm sorry, but maybe I just am not very good at making my point clear.



> But what I read in the posts on this issue is that:
> 
> (a) the judges are not following the standard; not that they are interpreting the standard differently


My contention is that the standard (the language) as written has not changed but the tests that are being set up HAVE changed ... toughened up for reasons previously mentioned. Describe that in whatever way you like.
I DO NOT NECESSARILY THINK THIS IS A BAD THING.



> (b) some people believe a new standard is needed to account for improved dog performance


Not "new" in the sense of replacing the old one.. I'm saying JH, SH, and MH should be interpreted as they were 25 years ago. That means the tests would look the same as they did 25 years ago. But then, guess what? We would have a pass rate of 75% and growing, and the title would no longer mean what it used to, even though the dog work is just as good. (say what you want about "non-competitive", but a lot of HT folks take pride in ther titles.)
If the standard, AS APPLIED, has not changed, a MH of 1980 would have the same skills as a MH of today. I believe that SHOULD be the case but I don't think that IS the case. For that reason, I believe there should be an additional level that recognizes the higher level of performance in todays HUNTING PARTNERS.
To accomplish this would involve setting some sort of upper limit on MH such as we have in JH and SH. I guess that could be called a change, but I would guess if the founders were looking at today's field of dogs, they would have drawn the lines differently.



> I am not reading - with the exception of your post - that there is an evolution in the interpretation of the standard


That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say!

LVL writes:



> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> 
> Personally, if any additional stakes are ever offered, I would prefer to make room at the top, rather than the current trend at AKC, which is to make dumbed-down versions available for people who want to earn titles without much effort. I wonder if we'd be having these discussions if the proposal was to create a "Pre JH" stake and title, with no delivery to hand, 30-40 yard marks in light cover, and any breed can participate, as a means of encouraging newcomers to the sport.


DITTO!!!

JS[/b]


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> > I am not reading - with the exception of your post - that there is an evolution in the interpretation of the standard



JS

My point is this. When I read the posts of others, what I see is a consistent concern that people may be artificially raising the bar in an effort to keep passes to a certain artificial ratio - and that this is bad.
Not that this is good or desirable.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2004)

My vote is YES

The AKC did the same thing in the OB game for the UD (utility dog)title . They added a" X " to the title it if you meet the additional requiements . It could also work for the MH .

P.S. Just some food for thought -- The OB game gives a qualification ribbion for scores of 170 out of 200 and placement ribbions of 1st through 4th for scores above 170 

John M


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> My point is this. When I read the posts of others, what I see is a consistent concern that people may be artificially raising the bar in an effort to keep passes to a certain artificial ratio - and that this is bad.
> Not that this is good or desirable.


When the MH title and qulification requirements were originally implemented, presumably the object was to define the skills that were needed by a hunting retriever. As far as I know, those required skills haven't changed...so the expectations of a Master Hunter should not have changed.

I realize that training techniqes have improved since that time. To me, that merely means that a larger percentage of dogs should qualify.

If all of the dogs entered in a hunt test were trained to meet the requirements of the original standard, and all dogs passed...why would that be a problem? (other than the logistics of carrying every dog to every series)

I believe that AKC obedience offers a similar comparison. Over the years training techniques have improved, and on average performances have improved and the percentage of qualifiers has increased. There has been no movement to make things more difficult in obedience. 
The UDX has not added to the difficulty level in my opinion. The exercises are the same. Dogs just need to be more consistent. The goal of advanced obedience titles is to give folks something to do with their dogs..and generate revenue for AKC :wink:


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

I happen to think the HT program in it present configuration is fine.

It appears there are many that think it needs improving and there should be an additional title level (stake).

Now the HT program can?t be viewed in a vacuum. It always has to be viewed with FT as an optional outlet for the more experienced trainer/handler/dog. If someone was honestly tasked to change the program and add an additional stake, what would your criteria include? Would you increase the OB? Would you increase distance? Would you have more series? Would you change the scoring so you could quantify performance more effectively?

Would it be a big dance title similar to the HRC grand and point accumulation? Would you also rewrite the other test levels to make a more balanced testing steps between the levels of JH, SH, MH and XYZ?

Remember your goal would be creating a stake that would be an improvement over MH. How would that stake be substantially different from an MH and a Qual?

Joe Miano


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Jeff T. said:


> I believe that AKC obedience offers a similar comparison. Over the years training techniques have improved, and on average performances have improved and the percentage of qualifiers has increased. There has been no movement to make things more difficult in obedience.
> The UDX has not added to the difficulty level in my opinion.


Actually there was a movement to make obedience easier. Jump heights have been lowered at least twice in the last 10-15 years. But as you say, UDX does not add to the difficulty of obedience as it is just a title based on the passing of both the open and utility classes at a single trial (day) 10 times. It (UDX) in itself is not an easy title to earn as it requires a very consistent and focused dog. 

And there is still constant debate about taking the group exercises ( 3 minute sit stay and 5 minute down stay while handler is out of the sight of the dog) out of Open. 

TM


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

joe, if such a stake were instituted, i'm willing to bet distances for marks and blinds would increase, the tests would get more technical ( :roll: ) and obedience would be what it is now.....an afterthought. the focus would be on the dog's abilities remote from the handler "out yonder" 

i also doubt that the judging pool would be made up of 8 pt master judges. there would be additional criteria. heck,we've been identified as "the problem". :? -paul


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

Hi all, I have been reading all of these posts with a great deal of interest. I am glad to see the comparision to Obed titles and scoring brought in. I have been wondering about this myself, but wasn't going to butt in where I don't feel qualified. 

What I like about Obed is that you are judged to a standard. All dogs that pass that day are awarded a leg towards their title. But, AKC still recognizes the dogs that performed "at the top of the standard" and places the first 4. No dog can Q if they do not meet at least 170 points overall, or at least 50% of the avail. points in each exercise. An NQ in any exercise is an NQ for the whole event. I see a definate correlation to an average score of 5 & not less than a total average of 7. A 0 in any series is an NQ. 

So, if obed can award placements in an event that has a Q/NQ type system, is it a far stretch to think it can be done in MH? I know the argument for the non-competitiveness of the sport, and believe me, I don't want that to change. But, at least obed offers the exhibitor a choice. A pass is still a pass and at the end of the day a CD is awarded if the dog gets 3 170's, or 3 200's. Yet, for those that want to be challenged they can go for the HIT, or Dog World award (3 scores 195 or up). Even after the UD, you have a choice. If you want to continue competing at a pass/fail level you can get 10 UDX (both CDX & UD pass in same day) passes and earn the UDX. But, if you are going for scores and placements and wanting to be the cream of the crop, there is the OTCH. 

I am not really suggesting we add placements into the Hunt tests, just noticing the correlation while listening to the arguments on both sides. One side wants to keep the standard the standard, and if 50 starters all pass, than there is nothing wrong with that. The other side seems to want the extra bragging rights, and to be the dog that is running at the top of the standard. Then there is the group that says go for the QAA but I am not touching that one...

Just wondering what you long time HT folks feel about the obed system and if a variation of that could be applied to the MN qualifications or a MHX title?

Latisha
FWIW, I think it is a disaster to ban pros from the MN to reduce entry numbers.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

caliber said:


> I am not really suggesting we add placements into the Hunt tests, just noticing the correlation while listening to the arguments on both sides. One side wants to keep the standard the standard, and if 50 starters all pass, than there is nothing wrong with that. The other side seems to want the extra bragging rights, and to be the dog that is running at the top of the standard. Then there is the group that says go for the QAA but I am not touching that one...
> 
> Just wondering what you long time HT folks feel about the obed system and if a variation of that could be applied to the MN qualifications or a MHX title?
> 
> ...


Latisha,

Perhaps, but also consider that there are 6 stakes in the old obedience program. Two levels each of Novice, open, and utility. Essentially the pros must compete in the B levels. Dogs continuing on for their UDX or OTCH also must run in the B levels. And the exercises in B level open and utility are run in random order. The scoring and expectaions are all the same, but the calibre of competition by the dogs varies greatly based on the level you are competing. 

So there are some major differences. SOme/many most folks may like. But the thought of running 6 different stakes at a hunt test will be more than many clubs can handle. Of course that would leave us with one suggestion posted here and that would be to just divide out the master stake. But there is still some argument to that. 

TM.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> ........i also doubt that the judging pool would be made up of 8 pt master judges. there would be additional criteria. heck,we've been identified as "the problem". :? -paul


Paul

Judges may be the problem, but the one thing I know about judges is I have yet to go to a test that didn?t have them! 

:lol: Chuckling :lol: 

Joe Miano


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

> Perhaps, but also consider that there are 6 stakes in the old obedience program. Two levels each of Novice, open, and utility. Essentially the pros must compete in the B levels. Dogs continuing on for their UDX or OTCH also must run in the B levels. And the exercises in B level open and utility are run in random order. The scoring and expectaions are all the same, but the calibre of competition by the dogs varies greatly based on the level you are competing.


Why would hunt test need to split into A/B stakes? There are no pros in Obed, but there are experienced trainers and novices. The A/B split in Obed is designed to give the new/lesser experienced handlers a better chance to compete for placements. Amatuer in HT doesn't equate to Novice A etc. in Obed. You are not really going to see a rank novice handler on the line in Master. If there was, my guess is the judges would probably give them a break (the handler, not the dog). Yes, you can fail your dog in HT for handler error, but overall it is the dog's work that is being judged not the handler. So I don't think this need applies to HT. Also, the random order of Open B & Utility B exercises is rather recent. This was done to add some variety for the dogs trialing every weekend doing the exact same routines over and over. This just doesn't apply to retriever games. 

Latisha


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

caliber said:


> Why would hunt test need to split into A/B stakes? There are no pros in Obed, but there are experienced trainers and novices.
> Latisha


Don't kid yourself. Most of the competitors at the utility level are pros. Many are obedience instructors and earn a significant income from training dogs.




caliber said:


> You are not really going to see a rank novice handler on the line in Master.


And if that were only true! Can't guess how many handlers that I have judged whose first time out was my Master stake. You really hate to fail them for not following the rules, but don't have much choice. The rulebook makes no allowances for a newbie on the line. 

Like I said, there is some merit to the proposal of spliting master but my opinion is that it needs to be a seperate and more advanced stake. At least this would get all the MH titled dogs out of the current master stakes and maybe those could revert back to the past levels of difficulty. And then perhaps give those dogs that can qualify 5 different time in a row under 5 different sets of judges a new advanced title of some sort. 

TM


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

> Don't kid yourself. Most of the competitors at the utility level are pros. Many are obedience instructors and earn a significant income from training dogs.


OK, pro trainers, but not pro handlers which is what I meant.



> And if that were only true! Can't guess how many handlers that I have judged whose first time out was my Master stake.


Really? That surprises me. You would know more than I would so no argument there. And as a newbie on the line I would expect to be failed if I did something against the rules. I was thinking that judges seem to be more patient with new handlers. At least all the judges I have met have always taken the time to explain a little more to newbies, etc. I think that's one of the great things I like about HT so I hope it stays that way. Maybe that is not so in Master.  Can't say I am there yet, but someday...

Latisha


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

caliber said:


> ]Don't kid yourself. Most of the competitors at the utility level are pros.


I don't believe the above to be true. I've been in Obedience for 20 years, have multiple OTCH and UDX dogs and the percentage of advanced obedience trainers that derive income from training is very small. There are a few that get some compensation, but the overwhelming number are hobbyists like me. I teach obedience classes (Utility) at my local club...zero compensation.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Jeff T. said:


> caliber said:
> 
> 
> > ]Don't kid yourself. Most of the competitors at the utility level are pros.
> ...


Well might be another of those regional things. But of those that I compete against regularly; Gloria, Judy, Pat, Patty, etc. most are trainers and have their own schools/classes that students pay to go to. Might be why we have so many 200 scores at our trials. 

And in talking to several of the handlers at this last NOI, most of those stated that they had their own schools. I have never gone to a trial outside those on the west coast, so there might be a regional difference or perspective. 

And even though you get zero compensation, AKC still considers you a pro in that if you were a judge none of your students could show under you, same as in hunt tests. 

TM.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2004)

> The UDX has not added to the difficulty level in my opinion. The exercises are the same. Dogs just need to be more consistent. The goal of advanced obedience titles is to give folks something to do with their dogs..and generate revenue for AKC :wink:


[/quote]

Good post *Jeff T*  

John M


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I voted yes, and I ALREADY run the Q and all the rest of them.
> BTW A jam at a FT is like kissing your sister :wink: If you think you and your dog can't win on a given day ,your not ready .So save your money.
> john


Just so John doesn't think that I mis-quoted him.

Ted


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

tom said:


> That's very true, *BUT* it sure wasn't interpeted the same. Most Master dogs of the era could not pass a Senior test today.
> 
> Without the pros involvement in our sport we would probably be still training to that 'old interpetation'
> 
> tom


I tend to disagree with you. I ran in that era in the Midwest and they were much more Field trialy then. I competed with a FC/AFC for a few legs, a MH with a Amat all-age win along with another with 18 all-age points. I judged a senior "back then" and believe some MH dogs could not have passed it. If nothing else it became much easier in the early 90's through the the early ,early 2000's. It has since become a little more difficult and more "venue" standardized, then in the past! I ran the 1990 Master Invitational (the year before the first 1991 Master National) as I recall my dog was the only dog that didn't handle on 27 marks during the event and the Test dog was a FC/AFC who didn't complete the first series without a double handle. Now that was only 18 years ago but!

AND I believe the next step is the Qual or the AA if one wants to climb the ladder! If your dog can't compete at the level, then perhaps start over. The HT venue should stay as it is ,the FT the same, "apples and oranges" in my opinion, don't compare and yes I judge both HT's and FT's. It's all about the dogs and having fun!


----------



## ChrisRobt (Apr 5, 2005)

John M said:


> My vote is YES
> 
> The AKC did the same thing in the OB game for the UD (utility dog)title . They added a" X " to the title it if you meet the additional requiements . It could also work for the MH .
> 
> ...


I also voted "yes" but a new MHX title doesn't automatically mean a new stake. In obedience the UDX is earned by passing both utility and open classes at the same trial ten times. Agility and rally have similiar "X" titles.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

ChrisRobt said:


> I also voted "yes" but a new MHX title doesn't automatically mean a new stake. In obedience the UDX is earned by passing both utility and open classes at the same trial ten times. Agility and rally have similiar "X" titles.


AKC would be smart to creat a "MHX" title for hunt test retrievers. 15 total Master passes (9 or 10 after your MH title). No new stake needed, people who want to keep running but with no intention of going to a MN can chase the MHX. After that, MHX2, MHX3, etc, just like UDX or MACH. All it is, is more entry money for AKC and the host clubs. AKC wants to increase revenue, here's an easy way to do it.

--Anney


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

Years ago when the hunting test programs first started it was not suppose to be for the "pros", but for regular folks who just wanted to train their dog for the hunt test program.Judging sure has changed over the years
The tests have gotten so out of control that it is true in saying that a master level dog of years ago could not pass a senior test today
Just why would you want to add a MHX to the hunt test program?
If this is done people will just go off to NAHRA and the HRC program with their dogs in my opinion.
Jerry


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Why not just establish a higher, broader std and use the master nat'l to accomphish it? Award a MNH (or MHX if you prefer) as a title to this to-be-defined higher std that has to be passed three times before the title is earned. I just don't see the FT Q as the next step. It's an entirely different path. I say if folks enjoy HTs and they want something more, great. It doesn't have to be FTs (& shouldn't be necessarily for a HT dog). It can be a higher goal that is not competitive in the sense that it is a competition between dogs. Rather it could be satisfying a competition, in the sense of the challenge to attain to a higher hunting-oriented goal for a handler & his dog.

This would put no more burden on the local clubs, would not mess with the MH requirements & it would help make the master national more meaningful. And the AKC would make some more money (to get their approval).

And, Ted is probably having a laugh restarting this long buried thread........


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

A dog that qualifies at the Master National doesn't gain any further titles. 
That might be resolved in the next century?
A new set of rules? A new title? Please!? An additional Test, judges, workers. equipment, etc. I don't think so.
Have you ever been involved in Chairing an event? Are you aware of the planning that is involved? Have you volunteered to work at an event, or do you just pay to enter and run? 
As has been suggested in eariler posts.
Train and run in Field Trials.


----------



## Richard Reese (Apr 26, 2006)

The best part of this thread is the time frame from page 6 to page 7. 5 years, nice pot sturring Ted.

Richard


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Down East Labs 217 said:


> The best part of this thread is the time frame from page 6 to page 7. 5 years, nice pot sturring Ted.
> 
> Richard


And equally interesting that in that time AKC has added not only several new titles for obedience, but an entirely new form of obedience. 

First was the UDX(x) where x increases from 1 to .... dependent on the number of UDX legs the dog aquires. Where 10 legs is UDX1, 20 legs UDX2 ...

Next rally obedience was introduced with several new titles; Rn, RA, and RE. And now they have added the Obedience master, OM(x) and grand master titles, OGM. 

Just food for thought!

T. Mac


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Tom Mouer said:


> A dog that qualifies at the Master National doesn't gain any further titles. ....


I understand that. Neither does the MHX title exist. It is the topic of this thread. The question has been asked for consideration. These are responses to that initial question.



Tom Mouer said:


> ...That might be resolved in the next century?....


OK that's your opinion but no possibilities will be considered unless there is a proposal. Past MN proposals have not met with AKC enthusiasm because MN has proposed a title without a distinction, i.e., without differentiating from the MH qualification. A MNH is no different than a MH according to the AKC as it was last proposed.



Tom Mouer said:


> ...A new set of rules? A new title? Please!? An additional Test, judges, workers. equipment, etc. I don't think so...


Obviously this is difficult topic for you and just as obviously you didn't read my post.

I said nothing about an "additional test, judges, workers, equipment, etc." Rather I suggested improving the MN so that it has some meaning in the form of a distinct title - the very thing the MN was formed to accomplish. My proposal would require No additional test, NO additional judges, NO additional workers, No additional equipment. The qualifications that would be required would be those currently required to run the MN. The only change would be enough adjustments to the current MH std to make the event distinctively a higher std, i.e., a MNH std which remains hunting oriented (rather than FT or mini FT), plus (as I've proposed here) 3 MN passes. That means it would take at least 3 yrs to accomplish after having obtained a MH title. At the same time the MH std would not change (to obtain a MH). Effectively it would be a new MNH std that would only govern passes at the MN.



Tom Mouer said:


> Have you ever been involved in Chairing an event? Are you aware of the planning that is involved? Have you volunteered to work at an event, or do you just pay to enter and run? ...


As a matter of fact I have. I have chaired both the Atlanta Retriever Club FTs & HTs. I am very involved in planning our FTs & HTs and have been for a number of years as a volunteer & officer. And I do pay & run the events, again both the FTs & HTs. I have multiple MH titled dogs & QAA dogs. Had a dog in the MN this year. I think that should at least allow me to have an opinion - which I have expressed. And BTW, I volunteer my farm for running the HTs, do I need other qualifications to have an opinion or is the issue that I have an opinion different than yours?



Tom Mouer said:


> ...As has been suggested in eariler posts.
> Train and run in Field Trials.


I do that too. But my point is, I firmly believe the games are different with different goals - and generally appealing to a different group of people (with notable exceptions). Having experience in both games, I think the games are different enough to attempt to satisfy the desires of some within the HT community who do want higher goals to seek. And if there is a way to accomplish that without adding additional burdern to the local clubs I'll support it.


----------



## Trykon (Oct 22, 2007)

This has already been done down here in the south guys. A good many AKC HT are offering a Owner/Handler Q the same weekend now. If you want to run a harder stake then step up and come on. If you wanting to run something that is judged harder but still judged to a standard then get your dog a HRCH and go run the Grand! 

The system works good so why change it?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Actually bringing up HRC is a good point. And part of the reason I would propose a MNH std is the motivation generated by the HRC system. HRC events and participation is growing at a significantly greater rate than AKC HTs. One of the reasons for that faster growth & support is the Grand & its approach. It gives the weekend HRCH dog & handler a motivation to attain a higher goal - that is still hunting oriented & stays within the HT community. As I have proposed it, the MNH std would not be added to the weekend HT, only run at the MN. The major change I propose would be a MNH title recognized by the AKC based upon three MN passes.

I just don't think those who offer FTs as the next step for AKC HT enthusiasts really understand the motivations of many of those in the HT games. Many don't give a darn about FTs, don't see how FTs will improve their hunting dog's skills and are not able or willing to completely change the way they orient their advanced training.

The more significant thing about my proposal is that if you don't want to participate in the MNH as a goal, you don't have to and it will not affect anything you are currently doing.

The HT & FT games are different, they follow different paths. From my prospective you might as well say if AKC HT enthusiasts want something else, go run SRS (yet another game with different goals).


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

I hadn't read Daves' post prior to posting. 
I appreciate your involvement, and wish there were more as dedicated to the sport. But I know that's not true.
A new level? How many people running in Hunt Tests have the time and money to run dogs at this "new" level?
Maybe, if there were Regional annual, or semi-annual tests for this proposed "level", but one annual event, each year in different time zones?
As i stated before, the AKC gives no titles for the MN qualifers. 
"First things first"


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

The "new" level would only be that governing the MN. If the MN is supposed to showcase the best MH dogs why not a title? I'm not talking about a new game just a higher std. I'm thinking the best of the MH dogs already meet a higher std & are just not getting any recognition for it that a title would provide.

The MN will never get a title for its event in the current environment. There needs to be a MNH std that is distinctive from that of the MH std for there to ever be a possibility of a MNH title and there needs to be a requirement for multiple passes (I say 3). No regional events, no changes to the MH std, no changes to the weekend HT. Under my proposal there would be no additional expenses either if you are already running the MN - it just means the possibility of recognition by the AKC. My proposal makes the trip & the plate worth something additional - and it would reverse the downward trend in AKC HT involvement. This is a win-win-win proposal. The high acheivement dog wins, the MN wins & the AKC wins. And it does nothing to lower the value of the MH.

Why not?


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Howard N said:


> I don't think so John. I still remember that first greenie in an amateur. I was on cloud nine! I FINISHED an all age stake!!! nfire: nfire: nfire: I didn't finish another one for a year either. :grab:
> 
> Now I admit with Tracker after his 4th year an all age greenie wasn't what I was after. When I got them it wasn't quite like that first one but it still gives a sense of accomplishment. Finishing is better than going out.


I am praying for a sweet GREEN ribbon.. I need some green AA ribbons to go with my sweet green Q and derby ribbons. LOL


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I voted yes, and I ALREADY run the Q and all the rest of them.
> BTW A jam at a FT is like kissing your sister :wink: If you think you and your dog can't win on a given day ,your not ready .So save your money.
> john


Whenever Fallon decides that he is going to pretend to be someone other than what he is

And whenever Fallon talks as though - for him - it is all about how the dog does

I like to pull this quote out of mothballs

As I said previously, sometimes getting a green ribbon is like kissing your sister - if your sister is Uma Thurman.

Too bad Fallon doesn't understand that


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2009)

Chris Kingrea said:


> We can hash out the details later, just philosophically would you support the idea or not.


If you are interested in something like that maybe you should consider running field trials.


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

I like the idea of doing what the Canadian Kennel Club, the Utitlity Title and the Agility folks have - a title for a certain number above and beyond the title. The CKC has a Grand Master Hunter, the obedience ring has the UDX and Agility has a the MX and MXJ. Not everyone can take a week off to run the MN and this would allow those of us that are goal seeking to have something to play for. 

I would not require a fourth stake, just additional quals toward something other than the MN.

Carol


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

I also support a specific standard and three passes for a title. However, to be sucessful they need to make is more accessable. First they need to have them 2 x a year rotating regions, also they need to change the 6 of 7 rule after you pass the first national. it is silly I think to have to pass 6 more each year just to qualify. Make it no more then 3.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Howard N said:


> I don't think so John. I still remember that first greenie in an amateur. I was on cloud nine! I FINISHED an all age stake!!! nfire: nfire: nfire: I didn't finish another one for a year either. :grab:
> 
> Now I admit with Tracker after his 4th year an all age greenie wasn't what I was after. When I got them it wasn't quite like that first one but it still gives a sense of accomplishment. Finishing is better than going out.


The best JAM I ever got was with a 11 yr old titled dog running his last all-age stake. Howard, I'm sure you were there in the Pass. I was happy he was able to pick up the birds at that level at his age...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

So how many clubs have the grounds, workers, and equipment to run another stake? I see something like this, you still have the same number of dogs in junior and senior, however the fifty dogs that would be running master are now in two different stakes…30 in master and 20 in what the hell ever you want to call it. I just don’t see the benefit for a club to want to bother with this. I would vote against spending the extra money on judges and other expenses so our club could take in the same amount of money (maybe a bit more if you ran masters at $70 and super duper masters at $80, in the above scenario that would be $300 more than just running masters and not nearly enough to cover an extra set of judges and other expenses).


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

*Green can be a great color. *Ted was in the holding blind behind me in Utah when I finished my first AA stake. I was on cloud nine. I wanted a piece of it but finishing and getting that green ribbon will always be with me. That day my sister was Heide Klum!


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

MikeBoley said:


> *Green can be a great color. *Ted was in the holding blind behind me in Utah when I finished my first AA stake. I was on cloud nine. I wanted a piece of it but finishing and getting that green ribbon will always be with me. That day my sister was Heide Klum!


Well, I haven't finished one yet but been right down to the last bird a couple times and that made my knees knock!

Hope I don't cry when I get one regards, 

JS


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

I kind of like Master Blaster.


----------



## choch2odog (Feb 8, 2005)

Most clubs don't have the equipment, manpower or grounds to run an additional stake. However, for every Master test there is a dog that aquires a minimum degree of competancy to pass the weekends test. There are others who just flat out smash the test.

The scores are there. Would it be difficult to include placements. That leaves the standard intact, but rewards exceptional peformance.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

choch2odog said:


> Most clubs don't have the equipment, manpower or grounds to run an additional stake. However, for every Master test there is a dog that aquires a minimum degree of competancy to pass the weekends test. There are others who just flat out smash the test.
> 
> The scores are there. Would it be difficult to include placements. That leaves the standard intact, but rewards exceptional peformance.


As has been said before. Placements are for field trials. If you want to compete there is a place for that. Hunt tests are ran against the standard.

What we have is working fine. If we need to fool with anything we need to change............ never mind that horse has been dead a while.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

choch2odog said:


> Most clubs don't have the equipment, manpower or grounds to run an additional stake. However, for every Master test there is a dog that aquires a minimum degree of competancy to pass the weekends test. There are others who just flat out smash the test.
> 
> The scores are there. Would it be difficult to include placements. That leaves the standard intact, but rewards exceptional peformance.


 
There are no placements in HT. As stated above, if you want more go run a Q, Bear Branch, SRS, the Grand, the MN...... Clubs are not going to be interested in setting up another flight..see my post above


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

I don't think you need to run additional stakes if you follow the HRC model. For an MNH: 2 Masters passes and say 12 Master hunter passes with a 80% pass rate.

Also you would have to run two master nationals a year, rotating regions


----------



## rabersin (Dec 2, 2009)

Many people have Master Hunters that do not want to run field trials. Besides let's be honest, the hunt test dogs would be at an extreme disadvantage in a field trial. We do not train to the distances or tolerances that field trialers do. Besides what attactive to many handlers is in hunt tests we do not have to compete again each other, just the standard of the test. There could be a higher test that includes quads, triple blinds, delayed triples, more diversion, extend the distances etc. The tolerances for steadiness could be increased. But enough of what it could be. My question is what would it hurt. Something needs to be done. The National Master was only able to complete four rounds this past year, only four! There was over 350 dogs in the test. Another level could qualify a dog for the National making it harder to get in. Anyway, I think it is an idea worth talking about, instead of just saying if you want more, become a field trialer.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

rabersin said:


> Many people have Master Hunters that do not want to run field trials. Besides let's be honest, the hunt test dogs would be at an extreme disadvantage in a field trial. We do not train to the distances or tolerances that field trialers do. Besides what attactive to many handlers is in hunt tests we do not have to compete again each other, just the standard of the test. There could be a higher test that includes quads, triple blinds, delayed triples, more diversion, extend the distances etc. The tolerances for steadiness could be increased. But enough of what it could be. My question is what would it hurt. Something needs to be done. The National Master was only able to complete four rounds this past year, only four! There was over 350 dogs in the test. Another level could qualify a dog for the National making it harder to get in. Anyway, I think it is an idea worth talking about, instead of just saying if you want more, become a field trialer.


If you want more, run HRC and NAHRA. Then you can run in Grands and RAW.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

rabersin said:


> My question is what would it hurt. Something needs to be done. The National Master was only able to complete four rounds this past year, only four! There was over 350 dogs in the test.
> 
> 
> > The MN had only 4 series this year due to torrential rains, not the number of dogs.


----------

