# Entry Express 25.00 Scratch Fee - Taking advantage of MH situation??



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

We are getting all sorts of emails about EEs new scratch policy for our upcoming test and complaints of the 25.00 fee.

- Participants signed up for our test with no statement of a 25.00 fee when they made the commitment. Looks like a class action suit waiting to happen.... it may be in the fine print, but as far as the end users are concerned, the terms have changed after they entered the dog and the test is not closed for entry yet.

- I think it is great that we can "scratch" a dog before an event closes without calling Tara every time, though since this is "online dog management", why couldn't we do this before?

- i understand that credit card fees are eating up EE but they can just increase their handling fee. I mean we are talking about 3-4% here. 

- since MNH official title, it has gotten very tough to get into MH events, so most of us have to commit to a test before we even know if we are able to go that weekend or where a young dog will be in training. So, we commit way ahead and need to make changes when the time comes. 

- I strikes me that EE has made a move as the only provider in the game. While EE has no skin in the game or risk in running a hunt test like the club does, they want to make 25.00 every time one of us figures out that the MH test we thought we wanted to run 4 months ago will no longer work for us. I doubt this would be happening if there were competitors to EE.


Frankly, i think it was a low class move in general to charge us 25.00 to take advantage of the tough situation that Master dog owners and handlers are facing. If you need to raise fee, then do so, but you cant justify a 25.00 charge for somethign that has no affect on EE. Its not like they are the one who lose revenue from a last minute scratch..our club does, not EE! I think EE should spend some effort to put a system in place that lets users receive a notice when a test or trial they have saved opens for entry rather than taking advantage of our MH situation. If we had an option, i would be pushing for our club to use it.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I wouldn't say that. Many people here on RTF made the suggestion for a $25 or higher scratch fee because they felt people were entering to hold slots that they may not use or to get friends in. Also the last minute scratches left the clubs with Unfilled slots and costs them money. The average Joe and the clubs have both suggested this type fee. It appears to be a bottom up, rather than top down decision. 

I did notice the Atlanta Retriever Club hunt test didn't fill up the first day opened so it must be working.


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

So i handle the hunt test paperwork and finances for our double master, senior junior test. It does hurt us when we have last minute scratches but not when they are weeks out. This fee applies to all cancellations ( i think it is a stretch to call it a scratch when the entry is not closed). Following your logic, EE puts up the fee and profits from it and the club only benefits from less people scratching and never gets a dime. It seems like we assume the risk, and EE gets paid no matter what happens to us.... Anyway you look at it, i am getting quite a few emails from upset participants that are suddenly hit with a 25.00 fee.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I am one effected. 
Mo was going to scratch my golden today- unaware that the scratch fee went into effect today. But if I would have scratched Friday- no fee?


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

Glenn you are so misinformed. Entry Express has made this live without adequate testing. I scratched one dog last night and all of my dogs disappeared from the list. Atlanta filled up within 15 minutes of opening. I have spent about five hours on the phone explaining to my clients why I think we are not on the list anymore. I've emailed the problem to express and tried to call and still have no response on the true reason what happen. Now that you know the issues at hand I hope you feel that this problem has not been fixed.

Waitlist is a great idea a scratch fee before the close is a bad idea.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Always be careful what you ask for my granny said 

This "scratch " business is really , at least in my eyes, an admin fee for having a program that needed to be rewritten for the changes the ht community ask for. 

Don't you think after this initial flurry and with the new closer to close entry dates many of us will get more educated on how to work within the system. 

I have faith in EE to get it right as it's a service for our sport. It's my understanding that EE has not made a profit in most years and overall is in the red since inception. 
Dk


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

They have a technology bug that needs to be worked out but in principal, the $25 fee is to make people think twice before throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks in terms of training. 

It's a damned shame to have to force good sportsmanship through financial penalty but sometimes...


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

DarrinGreene said:


> They have a technology bug that needs to be worked out but in principal, the $25 fee is to make people think twice before throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks in terms of training.
> 
> It's a damned shame to have to force good sportsmanship through financial penalty but sometimes...


Well said.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

No sympathy for a pro who enters and then scratches. How many dogs you enter and at the end how many you going to scratch?


----------



## Mike Trible (Oct 23, 2007)

I tried to scratch a dog last night from a test before the test closed , received a notice that my attempt had failed, then I received an e-mail that I received a partial refund, and when I checked the entries, all my dogs disappeared. Of course NOBODY answers the phone at EE this week, or maybe ever. I sent an e-mail to EE support, no answer yet. And yes, the $25. scratch fee before the closing sucks.


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Just to play devil's advocate on the $25 fee...so with this fee in place lets say you have more than one dog to scratch. I bet that folks will not scratch and pay this fee, but rather scratch after the close get a vet cert and get 100% refund and now other folks don't get a chance to enter. A lot of folks are close with their vet especially playing this game, that I bet unfortunately we will see more of that happening. Could be wrong, but just another way of looking at it?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Sounds like EE has just instituted a major software over-haul, and is still working out the kinks; happens every time any company, pushes out new software too fast. We're in beta testing people, still as a handler might not want to sign-up for any test that you aren't defiantly going to until the kinks are ironed out, and If you need to scratch a dog, do it after the draw for a verified reason which will give you (100%) back; dealing with the club, not EE. Otherwise deal with the $25; which we asked for to discourage people from holding spots, which also covers EE credit card processing fees for both entry&refund. Don't want $25 penalty, don't willie-nillie sign-up dogs your not intending to run. Have to scratch a dog for a verified reason (talk to the club), want to scratch just to scratch welp $25 fee is better than no refund, might think better about hitting enter for dogs that are not ready.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

does this also apply to jr and sr dogs?


----------



## Melissa R Shanks (Mar 24, 2014)

I can speak to this from a couple of different sides:

1) Hunt Test Chairman- the $25.00 scratch fee is applied to all scratched before the close. As stated in many emails and threads, the club will be the one that is hurt. The handler can simply wait until the close, obtain a vet certificate and be refunded the full amount of the entry fee by the club. Now the club is not only out the full amount of the entry fee but is out the potential of having another dog entered in to their tests before the close (loss of $160-$180 per dog). Instead of having a full crew of 180 dogs entered, we now have less than the agreed limit. 

2) From a handler's (PRO or AMATEUR-mainly amateur) perspective two scenarios:
A. I have a dog that needs two passes to qualify for the Master National. I decide enter as many tests as I possibly can attend in order to ensure their qualification . I enter on the basis that a dog can be a dog and may not go two for two. Low and behold she passes both tests, so there is really no reason for me to run the other entered tests. Should I keep her entered and clog up the already saturated system or scratch before the close in order to give someone else a fair shake of getting in? 
B. I have a dog entered in a test that will be closing within the next two weeks, she comes in heat today. What do you do?



These are examples of what is happening right now as we speak. We do our best to scratch as soon as we have a dog qualified or know that due to health reasons will not be able to participate. 

I fully support the waitlist, but I am not sure the $25 scratch fee is the answer for the sport as a whole. It is a great business decision for the entry system, but not so much for the clubs and /or handlers. 

Is this $25 scratch fee being done across the board or is it a way to take advantage of the ever growing successful hunt test game?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Ray Shanks said:


> Glenn you are so misinformed. Entry Express has made this live without adequate testing. I scratched one dog last night and all of my dogs disappeared from the list. Atlanta filled up within 15 minutes of opening. I have spent about five hours on the phone explaining to my clients why I think we are not on the list anymore. I've emailed the problem to express and tried to call and still have no response on the true reason what happen. Now that you know the issues at hand I hope you feel that this problem has not been fixed.
> 
> Waitlist is a great idea a scratch fee before the close is a bad idea.


Ray, are you telling me the many rtf posts I read that were suggesting scratch fees be implemented in order to prevent people from holding slots in limited hunt tests were not real?

Or that when I looked at ARC hunt test entries last night, it didn't show 90 something entries and a 120 dog limit?

Ok, maybe I'll get my eyes checked.


----------



## Brian Welch (Jan 30, 2013)

If I read all the new rules EE has in place it states that entries open on the Wednesday 3 weeks prior to a test. Personally I believe if you are not sure the dog is ready by then it probably isn't a good idea to enter. Just saying. 
Injuries are a complete different situation.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

The soonest I could check Atlanta on EE was approx 35 mins after opening. It was full. So I don't doubt Ray on this issue.


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

moscowitz said:


> No sympathy for a pro who enters and then scratches. How many dogs you enter and at the end how many you going to scratch?


I follow your point Mike. Its the principal of it, not the amount it hits me with. everyone knows EE has been in the red from other discussions, its opportunistic and the listing club is not getting any of the fee to cover their actual and real loss (we have done test that lost money due to low turnout).


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

Brian- our test opened up relatively late (2 months before the test date) and folks are now paying the fee that was not stated in the premium 2 months ago. That may be the case in the future, but not now.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

As others indicated "be careful what you wish for". I don't find a problem with the scratch fee. The, "think about it", "Hold a slot", got other things to do that weekend, get my name up in lights or whatever excuse, will get folks to think twice about cluttering up EE, then scratching....EE is at least trying to do something to solve the mass entry problem, in my opinion ,created by the Master National debacle .


----------



## Brian Welch (Jan 30, 2013)

Deadriver - I apologize. For some reason I thought they (EE) would grandfather everyone with the $25 scratch fee after the rule changes. Only makes sense that the new rules should only apply from here out and not for previous entries.


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

captainjack said:


> Ray, are you telling me the many rtf posts I read that were suggesting scratch fees be implemented in order to prevent people from holding slots in limited hunt tests were not real?
> 
> Or that when I looked at ARC hunt test entries last night, it didn't show 90 something entries and a 120 dog limit?
> 
> Ok, maybe I'll get my eyes checked.


Get your eyes checked

I specifically talked about ATL closing in 15 minutes and EE didn't test before they took it live.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Ray Shanks said:


> *Glenn you are so misinformed*. Entry Express has made this live without adequate testing. I scratched one dog last night and all of my dogs disappeared from the list. Atlanta filled up within 15 minutes of opening. I have spent about five hours on the phone explaining to my clients why I think we are not on the list anymore. I've emailed the problem to express and tried to call and still have no response on the true reason what happen. Now that you know the issues at hand I hope you feel that this problem has not been fixed.
> 
> Waitlist is a great idea a scratch fee before the close is a bad idea.





Ray Shanks said:


> Get your eyes checked
> 
> I specifically talked about ATL closing in 15 minutes and EE didn't test before they took it live.


No. You began by saying I was misinformed. Which I was not.

I just pointed out, in response to the OPs assumption that EE implemented the scratch fee to take advantage if the situation, that it was EE users that suggested the scratch fee. I also pointed out that ARC was not full (according to EE) as of last night. These are both 100% accurate statements. Now the fact that Atlanta was not full because your entire truck was scratched was something I was unaware of, but that does not make my observations inaccurate. 

So, I think my eyes are fine.

I'm sure EE will get things worked out. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## RvrRidge (Nov 4, 2010)

Don't understand why EE would set what I'd term an exorbitant scratch fee. Qualified a dog this past weekend and in the interest of sportsmanship and allowing others to gain entry into a yet to close double masters, scratched this dog to the tune of $50 in fees, none of which was conveyed in the test premium. Very easily could have simply faxed a vet note after closing to the hunt test secretary to the tune of much less in fees. Of course...this would in my humble opinion be dishonest and playing the system, but more importantly not help anyone trying to get into these "crowded" masters and impact the clubs bottom line in entry fees.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

I for one am all for a scratch fee. I am an amateur who trains and runs my own dogs. I am also the volunteer coordinator for my club's upcoming HT and volunteer at as many (if not more) events then I run. 

1. EE had to do a lot of work to implement these changes....work costs $$$...EE isn't a money making machine people
2. People have no business entering dogs and holding spaces for ones that "may" be ready to run at the MH stake
3. MN people have to deal with the mess that the MN itself has created. I certainly am not going to feel bad for you when you entered 5 tests and only needed 2 so your out $75. How bout you take the slots you need-2 and if a dog is a dog, waitlist or hope that others take only what they need and an HT is not full before closing. If it is, then I guess you aren't going to the MN; not the end of the world!! MN people filling slots they may or may not need is what led us down this rabbit hole!
4. Sportmanship...if it is not worth $25 to you then maybe you need to revaluate whats important
5. EE got a lot of things wrong and I am sure they are trying to fix them. Give them a break, respect that they make all of our lives easier, and relax. 

People getting their panties in a bind over $25! Really? 

No doubt that EE has serious issues and that it put people in a bad position, however, when has anything gone perfect the first time around?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Melissa R Shanks said:


> I can speak to this from a couple of different sides:
> 
> 1) Hunt Test Chairman- the $25.00 scratch fee is applied to all scratched before the close. As stated in many emails and threads, the club will be the one that is hurt. The handler can simply wait until the close, obtain a vet certificate and be refunded the full amount of the entry fee by the club. Now the club is not only out the full amount of the entry fee but is out the potential of having another dog entered in to their tests before the close (loss of $160-$180 per dog). Instead of having a full crew of 180 dogs entered, we now have less than the agreed limit. ?


If handlers are getting false vet slips for false reasons, whelp that's on the integrity of the handler, and has in my experience never been an issue. People who scratch after close usually have a real issue and are not trying to mess with the clubs to get refunds. If peoples integrity is worth less than $25, our sport is in quite a state and they can have at it. Still it's a pretty small pool of fish we're talking about and word gets around rather quickly if such things become a habit. As for having a full test, clubs are limiting to keep dogs to a manageable level a few scratched dogs is to be expected, less dogs can make a test run better . The only problem I see with the fee, is for a dog that suffers a verifiable reason to scratch prior to close, in such cases there should be a procedure adapted going through the hunt test secretary (the club) to scratch the dog, give the person full refund (whether through EE or not) and have the club contact EE to re-open the slot. But it really needs to go through the Club, it's their job to verify such items and decide on refunds, it's not EE job to verify vet excuses. EE only provides a service and is just making it easier to scratch a dog for any reason, and get the spots open; which if people are just place holding, should help things run smoother in the long run.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Bring back the VIP service!


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

Ray Shanks said:


> Get your eyes checked
> 
> I specifically talked about ATL closing in 15 minutes and EE didn't test before they took it live.


I'm confused. At this moment 2:47 EST on Monday, March 23, 2015. ARC Spring HT is not full.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

jtfreeman said:


> I'm confused. At this moment 2:47 EST on Monday, March 23, 2015. ARC Spring HT is not full.


It is not full, but it has a waitlist. lulz abound!


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> It is not full, but it has a waitlist. lulz abound!


Possibly several entered and then turned right around and scratched? Seems silly but what do I know.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> It is not full, but it has a waitlist. lulz abound!


When I saw this last night I figured maybe they set up 7 wait list slots. So 7 were available. Oh well.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

yes, well said



DarrinGreene said:


> They have a technology bug that needs to be worked out but in principal, the $25 fee is to make people think twice before throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks in terms of training.
> 
> It's a damned shame to have to force good sportsmanship through financial penalty but sometimes...


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

In a normal situation doesn't the club get the $25 fee? 

Or will there be a EE $25 fee and a Club $25 fee?

Or does the EE $25 fee only apply on scratches before a test/trial closes?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

After seeing a dog that has been dead a year entered in a MN test, I'm all for the scratch fee.


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

Atlanta shows 116 (120 max) doga as of 3:32 PM...

I'm not a HT guy so never got involved in all this, but it sure seems to this outsider that the scratch fee ought to go to the Club to offset expenses...rather than EE.

It seems like the rule changes stipulate who the $$ gets taken *from* but never addresses who the benefactor of the scratch fee $$ is to be. When it comes to $$ that seems like a pretty big whoops.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

UUH Blame the ones that played the system for so long.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

8mmag said:


> I'm not a HT guy so never got involved in all this, but it sure seems to this outsider that the scratch fee ought to go to the Club to offset expenses...rather than EE.
> .


What additional expenses has the club incurred if the scratch(es) happened _before_ the close of the test? The spot can still be filled; therefore, no loss by the club . . . yet.

Ultimately the AKC FT and HT entries are tied to EE. Either a competitor can step in to create competition or you are at the mercy of EE and policies it chooses to implement.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jay Dufour said:


> UUH Blame the ones that played the system for so long.


I would agree with this. Seems the loudest complaining is coming from some who can't game the system anymore without paying for it. 

Not a perfect solution, but a major step in the right direction and a chance to continue to improve things.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Im scratching the test for 2 reasons_

First- The dog broke a tooth- so it will be necessary to remove the canine. The procedure is scheduled for later this week... So he will have a legit Vet release

Second- He qualified for MN's last weekend- So I dont need to run him... and would like to leave that slot open for someone who needs it for a title or MN qual.

But the current system penalises me from scratching before the deadline to open it up for another dog. If I scratch today (which I will go ahead and do) I will pay the $25 fee... and allow someone else to get in the test... even though I will have a vet release on Thursday.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Moose Mtn said:


> Im scratching the test for 2 reasons_
> 
> First- The dog broke a tooth- so it will be necessary to remove the canine. The procedure is scheduled for later this week... So he will have a legit Vet release
> 
> ...


In a case like this, I do feel sorry for you and IMO you should not be penalized for a medical issue. Maybe in v2 they can make some provisions for medical issues.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Im going to go ahead and donate the scratch fee- as it is a popular test, with a deep wait list... and Im sure someone would benefit from scratching before the deadline.....and I dont like the idea of a club being penalised (by losing the fees of an entry) if I were to wait and scratch after the close.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Decided to look at EE. Saw this posted.

*NOTICE: The “Self-Scratch?” feature has been temporarily removed while we work to resolve an issue with the new functionality. We'll have it turned back on soon.*


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Peter Balzer said:


> Decided to look at EE. Saw this posted.
> 
> *NOTICE: The “Self-Scratch?” feature has been temporarily removed while we work to resolve an issue with the new functionality. We'll have it turned back on soon.*


The issue with the new functionality is that if you have multiple dogs entered and scratch one, it scratches all of them yet only refunds you for one. In reality, you can't scratch at all via EE at the moment, tests that close tonight are going to close and have scratches later regardless.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

I understand the scratch fee, but it should only start with clubs just opening their hunt, not clubs that were already open and full. Those handlers had no idea of the fee and it was not in the premium or a rule of EE. But also if your dog comes in season, or hurt and cannot run by the AKC rules you should not have to pay the 25.00. I for one would not scratch until after the close for those reasons. Of course that is the only reason I have ever scratched a dog. But I only have one dog.


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Since when did these games get filled with people that worry about $25. I see the rigs at every test. I can see the pedigree of your dog and have a pretty good idea how much you spent. I have seen posts about atv rigs that probably cost as much as my truck. I've seen the equipment in people's trucks that they use for training. There have been numerous threads on here about how much it costs to have a pro train your dog. None of it is cheap. I have virtually none of that stuff. However, if I sign up for a test and have to scratch before the close, $25 is the least of my worries. Trust me, I am not a wealthy man but I am not going to cry about $25. 

i like to joke with my friends and training partners that I should write a book about how to train an MH on a budget since that is what I had to do. One of the chapters will certainly have to be about not signing up for a test if you don't know for sure you can go and $25 is a big deal to you.

yes, I agree there should be a way to scratch the dog for a valid reason, such as heat cycle or illness without a fee. However, I love the fee for signing your dog up for more tests than you need "just in case." In fact, I think it's one of the reasons the fee was asked for in the first place. Hell, look at it this way if you are so worried about the "just in case," you are just paying a little bit extra for that insurance.


----------



## crowncreek (Jan 6, 2006)

I understand the need for changes, and I understand the headache to Amateurs and Pros, or for that fact everyone involved with a HT from the President of the club down to the bird throwers who are there late on a Sunday throwing the last bird. I understand rules are made to benefit the group as a whole, now some of those rules are going to be more of a issue to some than others, some will benefit, some will suffer. I don't agree with all the new changes, but I agree to go along with them to benefit all. I do see some issues with them, or gray areas that will allow for that double edge sword to come into play.

The $25.00 scratch fee, will affect the club and handler, simply for the reason that dogs that come into heat, or suffer a injury, prior to a close date will not scratch they will just submit a letter to the club and only lose a 4.50 fee, and in turn this will be a spot that a waitlist person will not get or anyone get if the test was not full.

The 3 week opening on said time, and the worker spots is a good thing, they should get in, and have a spot to run if they work, and I don't care if its a amateur or a pro. 

The major problem, with it all is how can you change the rules mid stream. If you entered a test 2 months ago under one set of rules, how can it be changed at the snap of a finger. I agree if the test has not opened yet, then the new rules should be the ones you go by, but when you done something 2 months ago, and you change and are going to charge a $25.00, seems to me those that get this charge have a valid point to dispute the charges with there CC company.


----------



## Swift River (Oct 19, 2007)

For what it's worth......

I'm a Pro and $25 is a big deal to me. The $25 penalty to scratch is way too high. I have a dog (my personal dog) that needs one to Q for the MN and he is being entered in tests until he Q's so I am sure he will be entered in tests he doesn't need. He is 11 and will be a MNH7 if he passes, he won't get a 2nd chance at his age. So it is a BIG deal.

I'm tired of folks blaming the MN for all of the entry problems, sure they are a part of it, but what about the AKC "Lifetime Achievement" award? I know of a person, who after qualifying their 3 dogs for the MN, ran those same 3 dogs in 7 more tests so this person took up 21 slots that someone else needed. I am sure there are others that do that as well, seems like that might clog up the entries a bit. And what about clubs that limit the Master to 60 dogs, then run a double SR and double JR, are they really short on help and grounds? Or for that matter, why offer a limited double Master when the same 60 dogs get in both tests instead of a offering a single 120 dog Master?

Not sure what the answer is, but my best guess is that poor/easy weekend judging makes it too easy to Q for the MN. If we had a way to make weekend judges really JUDGE to the standard CONSISTANTLY I think fewer and better dogs would Q and make it the premier event it used to be. Maybe the AKC needs to do a better job of training judges and holding them accountable for their tests. I know people will say that tougher standards makes it a Pro's game, but remember that a competent amateur with 2 dogs and a full time job can get more done in a week than a Pro who trains 20 dogs a day.


----------



## Duffy (Jun 4, 2014)

New to the sport. Disappointed in the lack of honor in some.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Moose Mtn said:


> Im going to go ahead and donate the scratch fee- as it is a popular test, with a deep wait list... and Im sure someone would benefit from scratching before the deadline.....and I dont like the idea of a club being penalised (by losing the fees of an entry) if I were to wait and scratch after the close.


This is what sportsmanship looks like ^^^^


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Regardless of their MN qualifying status people should be able to run and pass 15 tests if they want to. No "clogging" or sportsmanship about it. It's a sport to enjoy as they see fit. It's not their job to make sure their are spaces available for those who want to qualify.
The weekend test slots are not only for MN contenders they belong to whoever gets them and those people shouldn't feel as if they are taking slots.

As for the pro/am training that might be true once the am has the experience of how to train efficiently etc.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> *I'm a Pro and $25 is a big deal to me. The $25 penalty to scratch is way too high. I have a dog (my personal dog) that needs one to Q for the MN and he is being entered in tests until he Q's so I am sure he will be entered in tests he doesn't need. He is 11 and will be a MNH7 if he passes, he won't get a 2nd chance at his age. So it is a BIG deal. *



You have 2 choices here, 1. Buck up and play by the new rules that were created because of this very situation, or 2. Enter only what you "think" you will need and roll the dice.. Bottom line it's not about the dog it's about you, dog doesn't know any difference, and if it a REALLY big deal to you then the added cost shouldn't matter either. Gotta pay to play nowdays, sorry but I have ZERO compassion for the pro or the client that this new fee may be affecting..


----------



## Remitaz (Oct 23, 2014)

The only issue I have is you cannot make this change retrospectively and to dogs already entered, with no warning to pay a 25.00 scratch fee from a 4.50 fee for dogs already entered. If you did it going forward from a set date or dogs entered after a set date and let everyone know then that is fair and can live with it.


----------



## Scott R. (Mar 13, 2012)

Regardless of anyone's feelings about the scratch fees, it seems disengenous for Entry Express to apply the new scratch fees to transactions processed under the old rules. It's not like EE is waiting until the scratch deadline to charge people's credit cards. Entry Express needs to honor the terms that were in place when the transaction was processed. It's a simple question of ethical business practices.

Arguing that those who operated within the existing rules at the time should just pay up because you disagreed with the rules that were in place is letting emotion cloud sound reasoning. My guess is that if it were any other product we were discussing, you would expect the seller to abide by the terms of the sale at the time of the sale. Arguing the pros and cons of a $25 scratch fee is an entirely different conversation and frankly inconsequential to the point above.


----------



## Swift River (Oct 19, 2007)

Thomas D said:


> Regardless of their MN qualifying status people should be able to run and pass 15 tests if they want to. No "clogging" or sportsmanship about it. It's a sport to enjoy as they see fit. It's not their job to make sure their are spaces available for those who want to qualify.
> The weekend test slots are not only for MN contenders they belong to whoever gets them and those people shouldn't feel as if they are taking slots.
> 
> As for the pro/am training that might be true once the am has the experience of how to train efficiently etc.


Perhaps I wasn't clear..... My issue is with the AKC, not the people running after they Q for the MN. Although I don't think is shows great sportsmanship, it is legal and they have every right. Again, my issue is with the AKC in it's infinite wisdom adding the "Lifetime Achievement" award as well as letting non retriever breeds run HT only adds to the number of entries and clogs up the system.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Damn if you do and damn if you don't….


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

I have worked for several VERY large companies that had VERY large IT depts. well funded with very well educated people. I can not remember a single technological event or "upgrade" that went as planned. Current company is no exception.
EE has limited resources compared to these worldwide and multi billion firms in my past. It is beyond my wildest imagination that the contemplated changes could be made in a seamless manner and even more far fetched to think they could get it right the first time.
Give them a break please. 
MP


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

*Master - Saturday* - *-1 Entries (+47 on waitlist)

and wait lists for non-limited tests?
*


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Swift River said:


> For what it's worth......
> 
> I'm a Pro and $25 is a big deal to me. The $25 penalty to scratch is way too high. I have a dog (my personal dog) that needs one to Q for the MN and he is being entered in tests until he Q's so I am sure he will be entered in tests he doesn't need. He is 11 and will be a MNH7 if he passes, he won't get a 2nd chance at his age. So it is a BIG deal.


$25 to have the insurance of being able to run another test in case you don't pass the first one is too much. But, running enough tests to qualify for 7 MN tests already at the tune of $75-$85 per test and running at least 7 MN tests at somewhere around $300 per entry isn't???? Hmmmmm something is not making sense to me


----------



## winger (Sep 22, 2010)

What if a dog comes into it's cycle or injury? Still subjected to scratch fee? Other than that I can see the reason behind it, like it or not, it would deter multiple entries that will scratch later upon qualifying


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> After seeing a dog that has been dead a year entered in a MN test, I'm all for the scratch fee.


Dead dog entered?
Entry Express revamping their system?
Facebook/Twitter Pages created to share Master scratch information?
Master Tests filling in minutes (with all the associated unsportsmanlike baggage)?

Nothing we are doing has yet to deal with the underlying issue concerning the weekend HT program..., and the Master National itself.

I'll tell you all what I think the long term solution should/could be in a post later tonight titled...The Master Hunter Catch 22

I've got to go to work,
Enjoy your Dogs.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Swift River said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear..... My issue is with the AKC, not the people running after they Q for the MN. Although I don't think is shows great sportsmanship, it is legal and they have every right. Again, my issue is with the AKC in it's infinite wisdom adding the "Lifetime Achievement" award as well as letting non retriever breeds run HT only adds to the number of entries and clogs up the system.


you just said you don't think its show sportsmanship and clogs the system.
The weekend tests exists for more than just qual for the MN. It's your kind of mindset that will ruin the weekend program for the non MN chasers.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

captainjack said:


> I wouldn't say that. Many people here on RTF made the suggestion for a $25 or higher scratch fee because they felt people were entering to hold slots that they may not use or to get friends in. Also the last minute scratches left the clubs with Unfilled slots and costs them money. The average Joe and the clubs have both suggested this type fee. It appears to be a bottom up, rather than top down decision.
> 
> I did notice the Atlanta Retriever Club hunt test didn't fill up the first day opened so it must be working.


Glen, in one of your threatening, classless PM's to me you assured me that David didn't need you to speak for him. However, he has gone mute and you seem to once again be "toting his water". So why don't you stick to parroting Lardy's training articles or showing Mary Lynn your training setups. You are pretty good at that. However you arent doing so good at interpreting or solving the MH entry/ EE fiasco. I also doubt that you have any authority to do so.
Therefore, why don't you ask David to answer a few questions that some of us have.
You claim that this is a "bottom up" decision wherein EE is being responsive to RTF posters suggestions. I have seen RTF posts suggesting that EE eliminate or lower their $4.50 fee or that clubs should have the option to just make copies of the running order to hand to competitors so we eliminate the requirement of purchasing catalogs from EE. Why no EE action on those "bottom up" suggestions?

I have heard allegations that EE is a money loser. Seems like they were once profitable and since that time they have acquired monopoly status, raised their fees more than the rate of inflation, produced ever more bloated with advertising catalogs and cut their office staff from 4 { 2 Stacies, Shane & Tara} to just one: the wonderful and overworked Tara. How can that be?
They are partially claiming financial hardship to justify these policies. Are they willing to open their books?

It is set up so that a person that doesn't use EE and enters an event the old fashioned way still has to pay the $4.50 EE fee, even though they don't use EE's services. Doesn't that seem un American and overbearing to both the clubs and competitors?

I have seen suggestions of $300,000 overhaul of EE's system to implement these changes. I'm not an IT person, but my IT guy says this would be a simple tweak along the lines of inventory control and management. My IT person says that he could do this for a nominal fee. Seems pretty pricey to me. 
Why should there be any scratch fee before close? How do they justify a $25 scratch fee?
Also how do they justify a $10 waiting list fee?

There have also been questions about who gets the $25 scratch fee and the $10 wait list fee the club or EE. I'm guessing I know the answer, but who does?

I commend Moose Mtn for their attitude of scratching early, with a legitimate medical issue, in order to make that spot available for someone else to get entered and to ensure that the club doesn't get stuck with less than a full flight after already having budgeted for a full flight. 
I'm not so sure that everyone else will have such an altruistic attitude as Moose mtn. Won't these new EE policies encourage others to scratch after the close thereby costing the clubs and further limiting the supply of scarce available spots?
Won't these new policies also encourage some to try to game the system and wait until after closing to scratch?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Are you off the wagon again Marc Healey?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Moose Mtn said:


> Im scratching the test for 2 reasons_
> 
> First- The dog broke a tooth- so it will be necessary to remove the canine. The procedure is scheduled for later this week... So he will have a legit Vet release
> 
> ...


Brian, I read your future posts already so I know you are doing the right thing. This is NOT directed at you personally, but you brought up a good point...

Medical issue aside a person who does what you did is NOT being penalized for scratching to open a slot for someone who needs it. They are being penalized for clogging up a slot for a test they didn't need to run in order to qualify. Like I said, medical issue put aside as that is obviously a valid reason to scratch. 

No one can blame anyone for overbooking and booking early since the limits were put in place but this is the problem the fee tries to alleviate. 

I would look at it this way if I were trying to qualify a dog...

If I book 3 tests I don't need and the dog Q's before I get to run them... I will scratch all 3 for $75 and save myself $150 + travel and lodging...

People crying about being put in that position is just silly. Everyone seems to want their cake and to eat it too.. They want to book 12 tests to pass six, tie up slots other people need and then hey... no harm no foul when you scratch? That's bullshit IMHO.

If your dog is gonna have a 50% success rate getting qualified stay the heck away from the MN you're going out in 3 series anyhow, by all accounts I have ever heard of the event.

They ought to make it 6 out of 6 each year to qualify and solve the whole problem right then and there. I'd be curious to see a tabulation of success rate in weekend tests vs. passing MN. I'd bet that only the dogs with high % rates in qualification have a shot at passing.

Increase judging standards, make the MN 6 of 6 to Q and watch the thing self regulate.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

I find the elitist attitude from some posters in this thread really appalling. $25 is a lot of money to a lot of folks around here. I believe they are also out the $4.50 administrative fee. 

I am not against a scratch fee but that regular folk who just want to put a MH on their dog, and with legitimate reasons to scratch, would be penalized by EE in this way isn't right.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

That! It seems exorbitant but the real question is. Do the clubs get anything from the background charges? I am not against the bickering here but to put it into persepctive is hard to do so I go with my own solution. Put up or shut up. Get in or get out!



mitty said:


> I find the elitist attitude from some posters in this thread really appalling. $25 is a lot of money to a lot of folks around here. I believe they are also out the $4.50 administrative fee.
> 
> I am not against a scratch fee but that regular folk who just want to put a MH on their dog, and with legitimate reasons to scratch, would be penalized by EE in this way isn't right.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

jacduck said:


> That! It seems exorbitant but the real question is. Do the clubs get anything from the background charges? I am not against the bickering here but to put it into persepctive is hard to do so I go with my own solution. Put up or shut up. Get in or get out!


My understanding, from the EE sticky, is that EE is keeping the money. Their justification is that it is to cover the costs of the software development.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

jacduck said:


> That! It seems exorbitant but the real question is. Do the clubs get anything from the background charges? I am not against the bickering here but to put it into persepctive is hard to do so I go with my own solution. Put up or shut up. Get in or get out!


I ran a U-Haul store many years ago. Gas was ~ $2/gallon. We charged $4.50/gallon if you didn't bring the truck back full.

Do you know why we charged more than double the cost? Because we did not want to take the truck down the street and put gas in it. 

As many have pointed out in this post and elsewhere, the $25 was suggested to deter people from entering tests they may run, but probably won't. All of these changes were done to try to help the situation with MH entries. 

Anyone familiar with CC transaction fees knows that CC companies charge about 3% to process a transaction. My local HRC club looked I to this years ago and charged the customers 3% to use a card. And it doesn't matter whether the transaction is a sale or a refund. Take 3% of 84.50 or $94.50, two times (scratch refund) and see how far $4.50 goes. Now take a big Master test with 50 or more scratches.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Medical issue aside a person who does what you did is NOT being penalized for scratching to open a slot for someone who needs it. They are being penalized for clogging up a slot for a test they didn't need to run in order to qualify. Like I said, medical issue put aside as that is obviously a valid reason to scratch.
> 
> No one can blame anyone for overbooking and booking early since the limits were put in place but this is the problem the fee tries to alleviate.
> 
> ...


Darrin,

I think you are missing the point a little bit. AKC sent out rules changes with standardized opening and closing for limited MH tests (they did not mandate the scratch fee or even mention it). This came out on March 17 and said that the changes regarding the entry process would become effective when the EE is ready to implement or no later than July 1, 2015.

Prior to that many HTs had opened without these rules (some even closed and ran), filled up for whatever reason and some people for whatever reason looked to scratch a dog or dogs. However, EE unilaterally applied the new rules and their new "Fee to compensate for losing the VIP service" to HTs that opened under the old rules. I don't blame folks for being upset about it.

The new rules and new fee did not apply to the HTs in question. They did not open according to the rules and, one important factor that folks aren't mentioning, they were not able to reserve slots for workers.

I don't mind the new rules--they have costs and benefits though. However in this case, EE on its own imposed the cost on HTs that opened under the old rules but did not provide any of the benefits. It isn't fair not to grandfather tests before EE launched its failed implementation of the new rules and, in my opinion, violates the rules as set out by the AKC by not giving the clubs the ability to set aside slots for workers. Furthermore, EE clearly is not prepared to implement the changes so that they should not be used at all until they are.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

As a frequent "customer" of EE, I'd like to know why EE is wagging a war on hunt test bitches? Trying to add a little humor so hear me out. As an amateur trainer of a fully intact huntress I don't have the luxury of knowing exactly when she will come in season. Thus, I'll sign up for as many of the fall or spring MASTER HT that are available. Should she come in season before the HT close date, I contact EE immediately and withdraw her from the event giving someone else the opportunity to pick up the spot. The $25 tax or fine for a bitch coming into heat and withdrawing before the close of a HT is excessive and unwarranted. Anyone who thinks I should pay the vet $25 to document she is in heat before the HT close date is off their rocker and guilty of sexual discrimination. Entry Express' mission should be to continue providing an outstanding HT Secretary service, not setting up policies which are the domain of the AKC and MN clubs. While I'm on my soapbox the $10 to be on a waiting list is equally unacceptable for the same reasons. Software program modifications should be spread across HT community. If the EE fee needs to go up 50 cents so be it.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm the solution is don't scratch the dog, go and run the test, as you intended when you put the whole $75 down to hold a spot. Give the club the whole entry fee, don't scratch and "lose" $25 but still have $50 in your pocket. Put another pass on that life-time achievement title; but perhaps not one towards the MNH title (which AKC in it's infinite wisdom also decided to make official). If you got a verifiable reason, where the dog can't run scratch after close and approach the club get a full refund. As you didn't feel anything toward your fellow competitors for holding a space you never intended needing, as long as you can scratch when-ever it's convenient for you (& you get everything back). Shouldn't really feel anything to hold the spot the whole-time and approach the club about a refund. This will get those through who have been caught holding spots in tests prior to the fees (probably 5-6 tests, who would ever think that there were so many people signing up who weren't planning to run; who wouldn't have signed up if they knew there was a fee ). All new tests will be under these the new rules. All this whining is just showing, that people were indeed holding spots they didn't need, with no intention of running; and putting a fee will make people think whether having an insurance spot is worth it or not.

Won't affect me as I don't sign up for tests I don't intend on running, whether I'm qualified for the MNH, have a MH127, already or not. If I have to get a refund, it's usually me crying about my dog not being able to run, not that I won't get my $$ back .


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Darrin-By limiting it to 6/6 to qualify- your taking the game out of it. My husband likes to enter the local tests and run the dog for the fun of it. Here in Colo- our tests fill- but not like the ones down south. So for Ammys- they have to essentially put their dog away after 6 tests?

The test in question we are scratching due to this broken tooth- he is already q for MN's so it only makes sense to fix him up and give him some time off so he will be ready for the May test hubby (not the trainer) will run him in


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm the solution is don't scratch the dog, go and run the test, as you intended when you put the whole $75 down to hold a spot.


Don't think anyone is going to appreciate me running my bitch in heat.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Peter Balzer said:


> Decided to look at EE. Saw this posted.
> 
> *NOTICE: The “Self-Scratch?” feature has been temporarily removed while we work to resolve an issue with the new functionality. We'll have it turned back on soon.*


What I have learned so far is that the new system has MANY of the same attributes as Obamacare!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

mitty said:


> I find the elitist attitude from some posters in this thread really appalling. $25 is a lot of money to a lot of folks around here. I believe they are also out the $4.50 administrative fee.
> 
> I am not against a scratch fee but that regular folk who just want to put a MH on their dog, and with legitimate reasons to scratch, would be penalized by EE in this way isn't right.


if your budget is so tight that $25 affects you, then you shouldn't be wasting $500 - $1000 titling a dog


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

Just a thought. Some wanted a hefty fee for scratching dogs to try and deter people from "holding" spots and I can understand that. However if someone has a work conflict, family situation, what have you, that prevents them from being able to attend and they can scratch before the close should they be hit with the fee? Why not give a full refund minus the admin fee ($4.50) if you scratch more than 24 hours before the close, and if you scratch less than 24 hours before close then you get hit with the $25 scratch fee. This will encourage people that need to scratch to do so a day or two before the close which will allow time for others to enter, or someone on the waiting list be put in. The club doens't lose a spot, the person scratching isn't out but $4.50, which will also be charged by EE to the dog/person filling the spot, so they get a $9.00 admin fee for that one spot. I'm not an IT guy, but this can't be that hard to implement.

I will say the $10.00 fee for the waiting list seems a little ridiculous.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

DoubleHaul said:


> The new rules and new fee did not apply to the HTs in question. They did not open according to the rules and, one important factor that folks aren't mentioning, they were not able to reserve slots for workers.
> 
> I don't mind the new rules--they have costs and benefits though. However in this case, EE on its own imposed the cost on HTs that opened under the old rules but did not provide any of the benefits. It isn't fair not to grandfather tests before EE launched its failed implementation of the new rules and, in my opinion, violates the rules as set out by the AKC by not giving the clubs the ability to set aside slots for workers. Furthermore, EE clearly is not prepared to implement the changes so that they should not be used at all until they are.


Valid point Penn, and arguably could have been handled better. 

I guess I'm just sick of the bitching. No one likes the problem and they like the solutions even less! I'm going to try and title a bitch of mine this fall/next spring and just can't wait to run only the least popular tests because of this crap.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> if your budget is so tight that $25 affects you, then you shouldn't be wasting $500 - $1000 titling a dog


I really don't think it is up to you to tell how people how to spend their limited funds. I find it appalling that people like you have no empathy for folks with less money. 

I am not planning on running any hunt tests in the near future as I put an MH on my bitch last spring. I am, however, the secretary of a club and these changes I know will affect several club members. These are guys that work hard for the club, but have to save up just to buy new tires for their truck. They have to wait for a paycheck so that they have the funds to enter some of the events. I do believe some folks will think twice about entering a MH stake because of the risk of losing $25 per event, and I worry about that.

Right now I do not understand the EE fee structure, and I wonder when am I gonna get the secret codes to get my workers in? While this has nothing to do with you, the lack of information is the cause of a lot of anxiety and lots of agonizing on RTF.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

I wish HuntSecretary.com would handle AKC but she does not want to. IF clubs had another source other than EE or doing it yourself it would be nice. I do know what it involves doing it yourself but that was before so many master dogs. Years ago if our club got 40 master we were doing good.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Moose Mtn said:


> Darrin-By limiting it to 6/6 to qualify- your taking the game out of it. My husband likes to enter the local tests and run the dog for the fun of it. Here in Colo- our tests fill- but not like the ones down south. So for Ammys- they have to essentially put their dog away after 6 tests?
> 
> The test in question we are scratching due to this broken tooth- he is already q for MN's so it only makes sense to fix him up and give him some time off so he will be ready for the May test hubby (not the trainer) will run him in


You guys are doing the right thing and not bitching about the fee Jennifer. That's good sportsmanship and not being selfish. 

There are obviously some problems here with the systems/rules/fees but those won't ever satisfy everyone. That's especially true when the attitude is to enter as many tests as possible then scratch what you don't need... wait and get a vet note to save $25... 

It's all just so self centered and selfish that it's disheartening sometimes.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

mitty said:


> I really don't think it is up to you to tell how people how to spend their limited funds. I find it appalling that people like you have no empathy for folks with less money.


I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money Renee, but if things are that tight... sorry, just doesn't make any sense to me to be playing this game to begin with. What happens if one of the dogs gets injured and needs vet care? You need more disposable income than that to play. It's just a fact.


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

mitty said:


> I really don't think it is up to you to tell how people how to spend their limited funds. I find it appalling that people like you have no empathy for folks with less money.
> 
> I am not planning on running any hunt tests in the near future as I put an MH on my bitch last spring. I am, however, the secretary of a club and these changes I know will affect several club members. These are guys that work hard for the club, but have to save up just to buy new tires for their truck. They have to wait for a paycheck so that they have the funds to enter some of the events. I do believe some folks will think twice about entering a MH stake because of the risk of losing $25 per event, and I worry about that.
> 
> Right now I do not understand the EE fee structure, and I wonder when am I gonna get the secret codes to get my workers in? While this has nothing to do with you, the lack of information is the cause of a lot of anxiety and lots of agonizing on RTF.


That is the purpose of the fee!!! Think twice.

think about it people. This fee is not mandatory. You can title 100 different dogs and have an MNH65 and never have to pay the $25 fee AS LONG AS YOU DONT SCRATCH.

With that being said, I will reiterate what I said before. It is a shame if something doesn't get figured out for a bitch in heat, injury, etc. it is also pretty appalling to instate this retroactively for tests that already opened. However, family situation, work conflict, qualified the dog already should absolutely pay the fee and be happy that they don't lose it all.

I am saying that $25 should not be that big of a deal and I will back that up by saying that I am certainly not one of the wealthy in this sport. In fact, I'm quite certain that I am hanging at the very bottom of the income scale in this sport. However, because $25 means something to me, I will be certain to only enter the events that I know I can go to. And, if for some unseen reason, I end up not being able to make it, I will be glad that I only lost the $25 and not the whole entry plus travel, lodging, and dining. Hell, I did this before because the $4.50 meant something to me.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

CanAmMan said:


> Just a thought. Some wanted a hefty fee for scratching dogs to try and deter people from "holding" spots and I can understand that. However if someone has a work conflict, family situation, what have you, that prevents them from being able to attend and they can scratch before the close should they be hit with the fee? Why not give a full refund minus the admin fee ($4.50) if you scratch more than 24 hours before the close, and* if you scratch less than 24 hours before close then you get hit with the $25 scratch fee.* This will encourage people that need to scratch to do so a day or two before the close which will allow time for others to enter, or someone on the waiting list be put in. The club doens't lose a spot, the person scratching isn't out but $4.50, which will also be charged by EE to the dog/person filling the spot, so they get a $9.00 admin fee for that one spot. I'm not an IT guy, but this can't be that hard to implement.
> 
> I will say the $10.00 fee for the waiting list seems a little ridiculous.


I would even goes as far as 48 hours - this is a good alternative...but we will have to live with what EE is doing or find an alternative means for entering. I'm curious, I read some where that a club was doing it the old fashion way with paper entries, has that event come and passed? Wonder how that's going?


----------



## trapperwalt (Jun 1, 2014)

I totally agree with the fee and it should be higher. I watched a pro trainer scratch 14 dogs last year the morning of the test. Furthermore I'm sure these Pro's will pass the fee onto their clients anyway.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

trapperwalt said:


> I totally agree with the fee and it should be higher. I watched a pro trainer scratch 14 dogs last year the morning of the test. Furthermore I'm sure these Pro's will pass the fee onto their clients anyway.


Uh, if someone did that they would not pay the fee. Either they would provide a vet note and get 100% refund per the rules or not and get whatever the club decides to give them if anything.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Complain because you can't get in...complain because it's going to cost you to get out...It's down right comical. Bugs happen, but people were clamoring for change...bunch of school girls, and you have no one to blame but yourselves...don't forget that....

Day of Our Lives regards....


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

I was upset earlier this year, when I heard of the proposed “$25 scratch” and “$10 waiting list” plan. Figured logic would prevail and it wouldn’t come to fruition. So, I spent my time training and running my dog in master hunt tests instead of lobbying for a solution on RFT. Close dates 12 days before the test exist for a reason. No explanation or changes required.

However, the excessive fees/penalties implemented and imposed by EE before the close date sound like a nightmare I read out of a political playbook. This is how I interpret the playbook to read. “Let’s tax the following groups or classes….”


Disabled: No whimpering allowed. Jen, just run your injured dog or pay the tax.

Women: Bitches in heat get…oh fill in the blank… or basically get taxed.

Working: CanAmMan, Boss man says you can’t have that sat off like promised. Now you’ll spend part of your workday trying to earn back your wages lost.


Family: Forget your child earning a trip to the championship game. Just pay the fine. Where are your priorities anyways?


Successful: Hey hotshot, if you spent $500 plus on getting your dog qualified for the MN just suck it up and pay the penalty for those two backup tests you entered.


Amateur: Too many amateur handlers with one or two dogs hogging up spots. Can’t have that anymore; make it more painful, tax’em. 


Pros: I’m sure these excessive fines you have to pass on to your clients pleases’ the anti-pro hunt test crowd. Most anti-pro hunt test online posters seldom participate in Master HT, so they are basically clueless as to how much Pros do contribute to the hunt test community. This will give them more of an incentive to come up with more ways to stick it to them. 


Once again, EE’s software changes should be spread across the HT community. No penalty/fine or tax should be imposed for scratching before close or the wait list. If the EE fee needs to go up 50 cents to cover EE’s business expenses than so be it. 

So there you have it, my first RTF online rant or proposal. Now I’ve got some dog training to get back to. 

PS….. the FT community should be allowed to return to the VIP entry process


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

mitty said:


> I do believe some folks will think twice about entering a MH stake because of the risk of losing $25 per event,


 THIS is what the scratch fee is intended to do , I believe!! ( I have no inside info) TO MAKE people think twice. I am in the lower end of middle class as far as income goes. I think twice about every test I enter prior to this and now have absolutely no problem with a $25 scratch fee. . How many people is the scratch fee really going to affect. THere will be ONE week/ ten days of open entries. How many personal issues etc do you think really happen in our small little sport in a one week period. I am excluding injury because of the possibility of a full refund for those folks. Did anyone feel bad about scratching a bitch in season and getting a full refund before this all started. I personally have scratched three MH tests in my life, 2 for bitches in season and one because I qualified for the MN the week before. I did not ask for a refund for any..... I wish people would just go with it for awhile and see how it shakes out. Give it a chance!!!! Quit bitchin until you have something to bitch about


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Handler in Training said:


> That is the purpose of the fee!!! Think twice.
> 
> think about it people. This fee is not mandatory. You can title 100 different dogs and have an MNH65 and never have to pay the $25 fee AS LONG AS YOU DONT SCRATCH.
> 
> ...


I'm talking about folks having to scratch due to injury or bitch in season. Please read the the post to which I was responding. I worry that clubs will lose entries from plain folks on tight budgets who have to scratch for legitimate reasons.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Bridget Bodine said:


> THIS is what the scratch fee is intended to do , I believe!! ( I have no inside info) TO MAKE people think twice. I am in the lower end of middle class as far as income goes. I think twice about every test I enter prior to this and now have absolutely no problem with a $25 scratch fee. . How many people is the scratch fee really going to affect. THere will be ONE week/ ten days of open entries. How many personal issues etc do you think really happen in our small little sport in a one week period. I am excluding injury because of the possibility of a full refund for those folks. Did anyone feel bad about scratching a bitch in season and getting a full refund before this all started. I personally have scratched three MH tests in my life, 2 for bitches in season and one because I qualified for the MN the week before. I did not ask for a refund for any..... I wish people would just go with it for awhile and see how it shakes out. Give it a chance!!!! Quit bitchin until you have something to bitch about


You're taking my post out of context. It was written about folks on limited budgets who have to scratch for legitimate reasons. I don't see where EE is going to give full refunds to folks whose bitches come into season a day before the close. (Or am I missing that they are?)


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

FOM said:


> I would even goes as far as 48 hours - this is a good alternative...but we will have to live with what EE is doing or find an alternative means for entering. I'm curious, I read some where that a club was doing it the old fashion way with paper entries, has that event come and passed? Wonder how that's going?


I believe EE has a structured scratch fee schedule. $4.50 to scratch within 24 hours, $10 if you scratch within 3 days, and $25 if you scratch after 3 days. 

I am not clear if these fees are in addition to the $4.50 admin/service fee, or the total amount you will not be refunded if you scratch.

At least this is what I understand reading their pricing page (https://www.entryexpress.net/pricing.aspx)


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Handler in Training said:


> That is the purpose of the fee!!! Think twice.


What is there to think about??? Seriously, if you are campaigning a dog for the Master National there is absolutely NOTHING to think about. You enter a feasible number of hunt test out in the future to give you the opportunity to qualify. The fine/penalty/tax becomes an unnecessary burden on achieving your goal. Since when is it the place of a monopoly service organization to set policies? Case of the tail wagging the dog. I'm an upset customer who has as much right to complain as anyone else on here.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

mitty said:


> I believe EE has a structured scratch fee schedule. $4.50 to scratch within 24 hours, $10 if you scratch within 3 days, and $25 if you scratch after 3 days.
> 
> I am not clear if these fees are in addition to the $4.50 admin/service fee, or the total amount you lose will not be refunded if you scratch.
> 
> At least this is what I understand reading their pricing page (https://www.entryexpress.net/pricing.aspx)


Yes, it is in addition. The $4.50 is gone as soon as you process the entry. You don't get that back no matter what. The scratch fees are in addition.

Frankly I have no real problem with the fee or whatever they are doing. I know it was not some altruistic thing done by EE to get people to plan ahead better, though--it was a way to increase revenues for EE plain and simple in part to offset the cost increase of doing away with the VIP service.

My problem was how it was implemented, which I think was ham-fisted, unfair and, frankly, against the HT rules.

The rules changes announced stated specifically that all three changes would take place upon the sooner of EE being able to implement or July. It did not say that one would occur now and some later. The three changes were 1) a set opening date for limited MH tests; 2) a waiting list and 3) the ability for the HT secretary to reserve 15% of the slots for workers. That is the rules change. All three items.

First of all, as we have seen, EE was not ready to implement the changes. The problems that occurred were not just a few minor bugs, but were fundamental flaws in the architecture. Clearly EE was not ready over the weekend and are not ready now as none of the changes are operational, so how do they justify charging the fee?

Second, for events that were already open, the opening dates were not standardized, giving everyone an equal chance to enter, a waiting list was created in some cases (but it did not work) and reservations for workers were not offered. Unless they tossed out the entries already made for these events and started over, they could not comply with the new rules. Of course that makes no sense, since they opened and took entries (and some were on the verge of closing) under the old rules. Fair enough.

So, keep them grandfathered and only have it apply to tests that have not yet been approved for opening. That is what the AKC said would happen in the rules, it makes sense and it is the only fair way to introduce new rules I can think of. What EE did was not fair and a violation of the rules. There is no middle ground. The AKC was very clear about what the new rules would be and that they would be applied at once. Either the old rules apply or the new rules apply-not part of them are under the old rules or part of them are the new rules. That is what EE failed to do and I completely understand why folks are angry.

Many folks have pointed out that the fee to scratch provides a perverse incentive for some, which it does, but that was always going to be the case with the proposed scratch fee. I think folks are going to do what they are going to do about that, but it certainly is not what has everyone (that I know at least) angry. 

EE changed the rules in the middle of the game. If someone did that to you in the middle of a HT or FT you would be outraged and burning up the interwebs complaining about it, so why blame the ones pointing out the problems with what happened in this case?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

There are other aspects of the new "system" that have NOT been implemented. Please correct me if I'm wrong but, the rule changes provide for a designated opening and for an allotment of spaces for club members/helpers. It seems odd...or maybe it doesn't... that the WHOLE plan wasn't implemented at the same time. It seems to me that, if it needs to be implemented in a piece-meal fashion, that it would have been easier...and more palatable...for the "fine" aspect to be the last piece of the puzzle to be introduced.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Dan Epperson said:


> What is there to think about??? Seriously, if you are campaigning a dog for the Master National there is absolutely NOTHING to think about. You enter a feasible number of hunt test out in the future to give you the opportunity to qualify. The fine/penalty/tax becomes an unnecessary burden on achieving your goal. *Since when is it the place of a monopoly service organization to set policies?* Case of the tail wagging the dog. I'm an upset customer who has as much right to complain as anyone else on here.


Since a large number of people that kept getting shut out of tests because of the practice of "entering just in case you decide to run", asked for a stiff fee to discourage the practice. You have the right to complain, they have the right to want the fee, and the service has the right to charge the fee.

Your previous suggestion of spreading the costs out over all the participants is a typical government solution. Let's have everyone else pay more so that the few who take this approach and cause the problem (clogged tests and last minute scratches- not the problem if too many a$$e$ for too few seats), can continue the practice. 

I agree with Bridget, the entire point is to deter the behavior. Think of it as a 5 high burn.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Handler in Training said:


> ...In fact, I'm quite certain that I am hanging at the very bottom of the income scale in this sport...


You'll know you're at the very bottom, like me, when you have to go to the public library just to read what's on RTF. BTW, when did our club raise the dues ten bucks? You're killing me.
P.S. Love your avatar!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Frankly, I find Entry Express is using an axe, rather than a scapel to conduct surgery

First, why is there a sliding scale fee for Field Trials or unlimited Hunt Tests? In the case of Field Trials or unlimited Hunt Tests, there is no reason to punish people for scratching because there is not a limited number of openings available to the public.

Second, the transactions costs are the transaction costs. I fail to understand why I pay $4.50 to enter, but my scratch fee is $10.00 if I scratch more than 24 hours after I enter. Do transaction costs increase with the passage of time? And if not, why am I be penalized for the passage of time?

Third, by the implementation of this policy, EE is encouraging people to enter FT or unlimited HT at the last moment. I find this interesting, as one of the reasons to adopt EE when EE first entered the market is that it allowed everyone to see what everyone else was doing. Now, everyone will be waiting to the last moment to enter

Fourth, if you scratch an entry for a bitch in season or a bitch/dog with an injury, under the AKC Rules, you are entitled to a full refund. So, now, if you have a bitch in season, or a bitch/dog that is injured, you wait until after the close to scratch - because the club is forced to make a full refund, whereas EE will charge you $4.50 to $10.00. So the clubs, that EE was to help, shoulder the burden of EE's decision to charge fees for scratching that is authorized under the Rules.

Ted


----------



## NCShooter (Dec 6, 2012)

There are actually two issues being discussed in this thread.

The first issue is the new scratch fee. I personally do not care for it, but understand it. I personally think that if there is a dog on the waiting list there should be no increased fee. The only costs involved was the credit card charges to EE, which are more than covered by the $4.50. However, when the $25 scratch fee is announced in the premium when I sign up for that test I will pay it if it is necessary for me to scratch.

The second issue (and my personal issue) is changing the fees mid-stream. My dog needs one pass to qualify for the MN. Under the "old" system I signed him up for five tests this spring. When I signed him up for those tests the scratch fee prior to close was $4.50. I am planning to scratch several tests as soon as he gets his needed Master pass. Now weeks or months after the fact EE is trying to charge me $29.50 to scratch him from those tests. That is just plain wrong. How would you like to order a pair of shoes online with advertised free returns, get them, try to send them back and told that they no longer take returns. See what I mean?

EE needs to step up and admit their mistake and waive the additional fees for the tests signed up for under the "old" policies. I am confident that when I dispute the credit card charges they will be found in my favor. However, I should not have to go to that trouble. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

captainjack said:


> Since a large number of people that kept getting shut out of tests because of the practice of "entering just in case you decide to run", asked for a stiff fee to discourage the practice. You have the right to complain, they have the right to want the fee, and the service has the right to charge the fee.
> 
> Your previous suggestion of spreading the costs out over all the participants is a typical government solution. Let's have everyone else pay more so that the few who take this approach and cause the problem (clogged tests and last minute scratches- not the problem if too many a$$e$ for too few seats), can continue the practice.
> 
> I agree with Bridget, the entire point is to deter the behavior. Think of it as a 5 high burn.


 You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see master hunt test account for half of the income EE makes off HT entries. So, it’s not like you are over burdening the poor junior and senior participants with an extra 50 cents. By the way, maybe 10 will cover the cost, but we will never know because EE is a monopoly and I’m forced to pay the gatekeeper the toll.

While I’ve got you attention, please disclose your full relationship with EE. Do you own EE, are you an employee, or a self appointed customer representative? What customers did EE survey before enacting these punitive fees/fines? Never heard word of this mentioned at the MN. 

Yes it’s obvious you agree with Bridget. You and others want to charge me, an amateur trainer and handler extra $$ for shooting for the MN. Talk about a BIG government solution imposed without consulting customers. 

Sorry, I’m a Chessie owner and not accustomed to drinking the kool-aid. I don’t take kindly to high 5 burns either.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

It won't cost you extra dollars if you don't scratch.... YET AGAIN there will be ONE week of open entries, just how many do you expect to scratch while getting qualified for the MN. One? Because you passed this weekend to Q for the MN, you don't need next weekends test? You won't be entered for 3-4 tests out because they are not open yet...


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Personally I thought all of the proposed changes sounded like a pretty good solution to a problem that EE didn't create. Before this major SNAFU with the scratches and applying the fees to events whose openings predated these changes everyone was complaining about the uneven access to the tests (because the opening was a secret) and people signing up for master tests willy nilly and then scratching. Most people seemed to be in agreement with a punitive scratch fee. I agree that the punitive scratch fee should apply to limited stakes only and it is obviously absurd that the fee is being applied to events which were opened prior to the changes. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt by thinking that was unintentional and to wait and see whether EE rectifies that iniquity before pointing a whole lot of fingers. Hopefully EE is working hard to sort out the problems caused by their "scratch bug" with regard to multiple dogs being erroneously scratched.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

There are other pieces of this puzzle that no one is talking about.

Under the new system, all tests will open about 3 1/2 weeks ahead of the start date. I will bet there will be far fewer scratches when that is incorporated. Right now, a lot of tese tests are opening for entries months ahead of time ... that's ASKING for a lot of scratches.

I'm not defending the scratch fee ... just saying I think there will be fewer scratch-related problems with the new process and that is part of the reason for the changes.

JS


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Bridget Bodine said:


> It won't cost you extra dollars if you don't scratch.... YET AGAIN there will be ONE week of open entries, just how many do you expect to scratch while getting qualified for the MN. One? Because you passed this weekend to Q for the MN, you don't need next weekends test? You won't be entered for 3-4 tests out because they are not open yet...


and in this case you'll still be $50 ahead + travel and lodging if applicable, so... stop crying


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

JS said:


> There are other pieces of this puzzle that no one is talking about.
> 
> Under the new system, all tests will open about 3 1/2 weeks ahead of the start date. I will bet there will be far fewer scratches when that is incorporated. Right now, a lot of tese tests are opening for entries months ahead of time ... that's ASKING for a lot of scratches.
> 
> ...


Agree, between the schedule change and the "think twice" fee, we should see it go away all together.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Bally's Gun Dogs said:


> Just to play devil's advocate on the $25 fee...so with this fee in place lets say you have more than one dog to scratch. I bet that folks will not scratch and pay this fee, but rather scratch after the close get a vet cert and get 100% refund and now other folks don't get a chance to enter. A lot of folks are close with their vet especially playing this game, that I bet unfortunately we will see more of that happening. Could be wrong, but just another way of looking at it?


The way to fix that crap is having a vet on the test site, and they will perform a vet check at handler's expense (bitch check, injury, or illness) to receive full scratch refund. Pretty sure I'd eat the 25.00 bucks.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

The only problem I see with the 3 1/2 wks opening is some of us have to schedule time off of work. This might hurt the armature with planning for time off. On the other coin, your right it should cut down on scratches. Still will be an issue if you have a bitch come in heat after entering and prior to close or injured dog. I for one will not take the 25.00 hit for those reasons when AKC rules are full refund.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

NCShooter said:


> The second issue (and my personal issue) is changing the fees mid-stream. My dog needs one pass to qualify for the MN. Under the "old" system I signed him up for five tests this spring. When I signed him up for those tests the scratch fee prior to close was $4.50. I am planning to scratch several tests as soon as he gets his needed Master pass. Now weeks or months after the fact EE is trying to charge me $29.50 to scratch him from those tests. That is just plain wrong. How would you like to order a pair of shoes online with advertised free returns, get them, try to send them back and told that they no longer take returns. See what I mean?


The EE people can not impose a new fee on entrants that have already signed up and were never told of the pending fee change. Those folks may contact the credit card provider and complain of a "charge back". The fee will be suspended and EE will have to explain the charge to the CC company ... in this case a whole lot of explaining. You will be notified of the progress of your complaint and if enough complaints for the same practice (amending the fees after the entry) take place, I think that EE will be forced to return the funds en masse.

Perhaps some reading in sound business practices is in order.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

captainjack said:


> Are you off the wagon again Marc Healey?


Glen,Is this the only response you could come up with for the questions I raised?

Why is it that whenever anyone disagrees with you that you immediately become non responsive & take the low road.
I don't see where my personal issues of the past are relevant to the current conversation. Possibly your post is a veiled cry for help for your issues. To that end I have no idea if there is a 12 step program for Classless, narcissistic, cross dressing, condescending jerks. Best of luck, I certainly hope you can find help 
But since you desire to take the conversation that direction, then I'll play along and answer your tasteless and irrelevant question. Then maybe you can answer my questions re posted for your convenience below. Maybe more preferably you can get the suddenly invisible David Didier to answer the RELEVANT questions that are being raised by myself and others

I have had substance abuse issues in the past. My drug of choice was cocaine. I have never hidden from that fact. I am an addict. I have not been a practicing addict for over a decade.
Hopefully I never will be a practicing addict again. I feel confident that I am out of the woods; but one never knows. It is a one day at a time kind of thing

Then maybe you can answer my questions re posted for your convenience below. Maybe more preferably you can get the suddenly invisible David Didier to answer the RELEVANT questions that are being raised by myself and others

Glen, in one of your threatening, classless PM's to me you assured me that David didn't need you to speak for him. However, he has gone mute and you seem to once again be "toting his water". So why don't you stick to parroting Lardy's training articles or showing Mary Lynn your training setups. You are pretty good at that. However you arent doing so good at interpreting or solving the MH entry/ EE fiasco. I also doubt that you have any authority to do so.
Therefore, why don't you ask David to answer a few questions that some of us have.
You claim that this is a "bottom up" decision wherein EE is being responsive to RTF posters suggestions. I have seen RTF posts suggesting that EE eliminate or lower their $4.50 fee or that clubs should have the option to just make copies of the running order to hand to competitors so we eliminate the requirement of purchasing catalogs from EE. Why no EE action on those "bottom up" suggestions?

I have heard allegations that EE is a money loser. Seems like they were once profitable and since that time they have acquired monopoly status, raised their fees more than the rate of inflation, produced ever more bloated with advertising catalogs and cut their office staff from 4 { 2 Stacies, Shane & Tara} to just one: the wonderful and overworked Tara. How can that be?
They are partially claiming financial hardship to justify these policies. Are they willing to open their books?

It is set up so that a person that doesn't use EE and enters an event the old fashioned way still has to pay the $4.50 EE fee, even though they don't use EE's services. Doesn't that seem un American and overbearing to both the clubs and competitors?

I have seen suggestions of $300,000 overhaul of EE's system to implement these changes. I'm not an IT person, but my IT guy says this would be a simple tweak along the lines of inventory control and management. My IT person says that he could do this for a nominal fee. Seems pretty pricey to me. 
Why should there be any scratch fee before close? How do they justify a $25 scratch fee?
Also how do they justify a $10 waiting list fee?

There have also been questions about who gets the $25 scratch fee and the $10 wait list fee the club or EE. I'm guessing I know the answer, but who does?

I commend Moose Mtn for their attitude of scratching early, with a legitimate medical issue, in order to make that spot available for someone else to get entered and to ensure that the club doesn't get stuck with less than a full flight after already having budgeted for a full flight. 
I'm not so sure that everyone else will have such an altruistic attitude as Moose mtn. Won't these new EE policies encourage others to scratch after the close thereby costing the clubs and further limiting the supply of scarce available spots?
Won't these new policies also encourage some to try to game the system and wait until after closing to scratch?

I believe I fully answered your question Glen. Now please try to stay on point as you {or preferably David} answer the relevant questions.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

Moose Mtn said:


> Im scratching the test for 2 reasons_
> 
> First- The dog broke a tooth- so it will be necessary to remove the canine. The procedure is scheduled for later this week... So he will have a legit Vet release
> 
> ...


So I am a bit confused. Does EE retain the $25 scratch fee or pass the $25 scratch fee back to the hosting club.

Seems like this is a valid reason for the club to still return the entry fee portion validated by vet statement.


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

If EE needs to pay for the software change, then add a .50 change to to service fee until it is paid. I agree the 25 dollar fee is wrong. They have to do what the premium states.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

frontier said:


> So I am a bit confused. Does EE retain the $25 scratch fee or pass the $25 scratch fee back to the hosting club.
> 
> Seems like this is a valid reason for the club to still return the entry fee portion validated by vet statement.


EE keeps it, Clubs get nothing.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Karen Klotthor said:


> EE keeps it, Clubs get nothing.


Why would they get any of the scratch fee? They didn't DO anything to provide the service....


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Why would the club get a fee based on a scratch prior to an event closing? No cost have been incurred prior to the start of the trial. Now once it is closed and the club is counting on that entry, yes club should hold back scratch fee.


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

Labs said:


> Why would they get any of the scratch fee? They didn't DO anything to provide the service....


So what did EE do to earn the right to keep the money?


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Ken Newcomb said:


> So what did EE do to earn the right to keep the money?


Possession is _nine_-_tenths _ of the law


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I tell ya what- Im scared to death to submit my scratch on my golden... In fear that it will also scratch my lab that IS running in the test.... Sigh... I sent them an email asking a few questions on the protocol... 

This is crazy


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Labs said:


> Why would they get any of the scratch fee? They didn't DO anything to provide the service....


I was only answering the question asked.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

Isn't EE owned by "Retriever News" which is owned and sponsored by the National Retriever club and the National Amateur Retriever Club. At least that's how I read it on page 4 of the Dec. copy of Retriever News.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

downbirds said:


> Isn't EE owned by "Retriever News" which is owned and sponsored by the National Retriever club and the National Amateur Retriever Club. At least that's how I read it on page 4 of the Dec. copy of Retriever News.


Yes. It is now.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

downbirds said:


> Isn't EE owned by "Retriever News" which is owned and sponsored by the National Retriever club and the National Amateur Retriever Club. At least that's how I read it on page 4 of the Dec. copy of Retriever News.


1) So Retriever News is responsible for implementing the "think twice" penalty? 

2) What is captainjack's relationship with EE? Is Retriever News also collecting the $10 for me to be listed on the waiting list?


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I am placing my vote like the scratch fee, (don't think it is fair to make it retroactive, should start on events from day implemented on). Think the ten dollar waiting list fee is a little steep. But we all have to suffer a little for the bad actions of a few. P.S. getting a false vet note is just as unsportsman like, as entering dogs live or dead to hold spots you know you are going to scratch.


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

Labs said:


> Why would they get any of the scratch fee? They didn't DO anything to provide the service....


You have obviously never helped with a hunt test in a substantial way, if at all. Thats about the third time you have made that absurd comment in some form...exactly what does EE put on the line when our club announces a hunt test? We put up 8-10K in expenses and about 400 man hours donated and EE does what exactly for that 225 dogs? They fee has always been reasonable for what they provide, simple admin services. But make no mistake, no one with business sense can argue that EE has anything at all outside of CC fees to lose from a scratch dog and the club has much to lose...that said, no one has provided any service to a scratch dog anyway...they scratched, but the club has put up the effort and RISK to run a test. Untill 3 yrs ago, we lost money on almost every test. I doubt EE ever lost a dime on our hunt test.

When we are all signing up for test 3 weeks before they happen, it will not matter a whole lot. I started the thread about the misquided charges that are being applied to entrants that signed up under one set of terms and now they are being handed another. As stated by others, it will not pass a CC fraud charge inspection i can tell you that.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

There has been SEVERAL comments about entries that "hold a spot". I'm not sure of the definition of that term but I don't consider an entry that is made to provide for an "insurance" test as holding a spot. It would seem rather foolish to NOT enter a dog into an extra test to protect a sizeable investment in 4 or 5 passes. I don't think there is as much "holding of spots" as is portrayed by many of the posters. I know that I wouldn't want a bunch of $80 charges out there for a long period of time just to "hold a spot"

I have no reason to feel that EE has proposed and implemented the changes to line their own pockets. I gladly give them the benefit of the doubt that they are proactive in trying to resolve the problems which are a result of the limited entries. I am concerned that they may have acted a little hastily without thinking the process through sufficiently. 

My first and foremost, concern is that the new system seem to focus on limiting thoughtless entries but, in doing so, establishes a disincentive for scratching before the close and proves no remedy for the clubs to fill those spots. IMHO, this will do two things, neither good...It will cause more vacancies in the entries which will affect the bottom line for the clubs and, from reading the threads on this forum, people who would love to have those spots will be staying home. 

The other concern is that, during the "comment period", there were several suggestions made to which EE replied that rule changes were needed. I get that...what I don't get is EE's apparent disregard for the rules by implementing their new system before it was ready.


----------



## Chris Richards (Feb 25, 2005)

There is a method to scratch before the close and get a full refund per AKC rules. From EE Pricing Page. 

"If you are requesting that an entry be removed due to injury or heat cycle you must have the event secretary forward evidence of the facts to Entry Express Support prior to the event close."


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

cdawg said:


> There is a method to scratch before the close and get a full refund per AKC rules. From EE Pricing Page.
> 
> "If you are requesting that an entry be removed due to injury or heat cycle you must have the event secretary forward evidence of the facts to Entry Express Support prior to the event close."


They just added that, then. I took a screen shot of the pricing page on 3/24 and that clause was not present.

It is a step in the right direction, but the logistics sound like a nightmare.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

cdawg said:


> There is a method to scratch before the close and get a full refund per AKC rules. From EE Pricing Page.
> 
> "If you are requesting that an entry be removed due to injury or heat cycle you must have the event secretary forward evidence of the facts to Entry Express Support prior to the event close."


Great, another task I have to be responsible for as HTS? Can't wait to hear the complaints for people who scratch and blame HTS for not informing EE in a timely manner.


----------



## Ninja (Feb 4, 2014)

I like how a lot of people are complaining about the few glitches EE has had with this program change. It happens to Microsoft and Apple when they launch new systems and there a hell of a lot bigger than EE. Some people just can't except change


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

By the time you as an HTS have to deal with all the bull, just as soon do it yourself and by pass EE all together. I see that 2 clubs that were on EE but not opened, pulled their hunt off. They are looking for another source.
It is hard enough to get anyone to take the HTS job, but it will just be harder. The EE service of the past made our job as HTS so much easier.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Ninja said:


> I like how a lot of people are complaining about the few glitches EE has had with this program change. It happens to Microsoft and Apple when they launch new systems and there a hell of a lot bigger than EE. Some people just can't except change


I do not think it is the actual change but how it was done. None of these changes should have affected hunts already open. That is the biggest complaint.


----------



## EJ (Dec 5, 2011)

Ninja said:


> I like how a lot of people are complaining about the few glitches EE has had with this program change. It happens to Microsoft and Apple when they launch new systems and there a hell of a lot bigger than EE. Some people just can't except change


Will there be some enterprising person out there to create competition for EE? Best way to show your frustration toward a product is voting with your feet.

Is there another option? Back to paper entries for the HTS? I remember when EE was set up- some people in the game were not too happy about the $4.50 fee. Wonder how they feel now with a $25 scratch fee?


----------



## Pat Puwal (Dec 22, 2004)

I read a posting on a Facebook group called AKC Master Tests Openings and Scratches yesterday that said: "It is Entry Express' position that if a test was open for entries PRIOR to the new scratch policy taking affect (last Friday), those folks who scratch via Entry Express prior to the close of the event, will NOT be subjected to the scratch fee." Has anyone who has been charged a scratch fee sent an email to Entry Express? Might be worth it.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EJ said:


> Is there another option? Back to paper entries for the HTS? I remember when EE was set up- some people in the game were not too happy about the $4.50 fee. Wonder how they feel now with a $25 scratch fee?


I was a lot more critical the way EE treated scratches with the limited entry tests before the change than I am now with an $25 scratch fee. 

I was hunt test secretary before EE. With the paper entries, we had a $25 scratch fee. There was no distinction of before or after the close. The HT secretary always had to deal with the scratches.

I think the fee is needed.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

I've personally scratched 2 master dogs from 1 test. The reason - a judge had to back out and I filled in at Junior/Senior. I understand the need for the fees, but should I eat $50 to take a vacation day, sit in the rain, eat a cold sandwich, and be refered to as every name in the book but my own.

How will this be handled in the future? I can that fee being turned in with judge's expenses in the not so distant future.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

There is another electronic entry method out there.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Thomas D said:


> There is another electronic entry method out there.


Can you give us the name . It will not be Huntsecretary.com. Janet said she will not do AKC. I would love to know who it is. SO Miss and Magnolia just pulled their hunt from EE and I know they would love to know.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Splash_em said:


> I've personally scratched 2 master dogs from 1 test. The reason - a judge had to back out and I filled in at Junior/Senior. I understand the need for the fees, but should I eat $50 to take a vacation day, sit in the rain, eat a cold sandwich, and be refered to as every name in the book but my own.
> 
> How will this be handled in the future? I can that fee being turned in with judge's expenses in the not so distant future.


And then you might have some people needing to scratch because of the judge change (for example, it produces a resulting conflict of interest).


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> There is another electronic entry method out there.


Tom that entry service has nothing to do with the Master National either. MN board had a conference call last night and voted to not compete with EE. I would like for them to get on RTF and explain THAT. Five years ago the board thought it was a good idea to use a different entry service. What has changed? Master National board members lets hear from you!!!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Karen Klotthor said:


> Can you give us the name . It will not be Huntsecretary.com. Janet said she will not do AKC. I would love to know who it is. SO Miss and Magnolia just pulled their hunt from EE and I know they would love to know.


After Rays post it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Ray Shanks said:


> Tom that entry service has nothing to do with the Master National either. MN board had a conference call last night and voted to not compete with EE. I would like for them to get on RTF and explain THAT. Five years ago the board thought it was a good idea to use a different entry service. What has changed? Master National board members lets hear from you!!![/QUOTe
> 
> Wonder what the vote was?


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

I would like to know myself!


----------



## EJ (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray- how do these changes affect VIP members- If you are entering dogs for clients does the scratch fee still apply if one of those dogs comes into season or has an injury. Does the VIP program still exist?

What are the thoughts of the pro's for the new procedures. Helpful or added headache. 

May be making a false assumption you operate as a VIP member but thought you might be familiar- If not, apologies-

Thanks for any feedback


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

EJ

I was a VIP member for the last 9 months. I wasn't one before that. It was never the advantage a few on here tried to make it be. It wasn't faster or easier to scratch. We did pay EE direct with a check. Couldn't use a credit card and if you were late with a payment the fee was worse than most cc companies. VIP payment was due before the test started. EE took that feature away several months ago so it is nonexistent. I understand it is available for FT pro ONLY NOW!!!

Ray


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Another really big issue, if you look at the wording on AKC rule/regulations, No fee can be charged without it being published on the premium before hand. So all the clubs that were open and approved should not be affected by the new scratch policy. Once AKC approves your premium it is final.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Karen Klotthor said:


> Another really big issue, if you look at the wording on AKC rule/regulations, No fee can be charged without it being published on the premium before hand. So all the clubs that were open and approved should not be affected by the new scratch policy. Once AKC approves your premium it is final.



That has already been announced...so people that were charged a scratch fee on tests that they entered before the change will be getting that scratch fee back....


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

Labs said:


> That has already been announced...so people that were charged a scratch fee on tests that they entered before the change will be getting that scratch fee back....



Was this an official straight from EE announcement? I might have missed that.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks Shawn, I did not see that announcement.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Kyle Bertram said:


> Was this an official straight from EE announcement? I might have missed that.


As straight from EE as you can get, I'd imagine. If you are a Facebook member, it was posted Here I asked to cut and paste the posting here to RTF, but haven't gotten a response yet...but it is there on the FB page AKC Master Test Openings/Scratches


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Posted to Facebook by *Michelle Hudnall Love* - Reposted here with Permission

UPDATE ON ENTRY EXPRESS SCRATCH POLICY......
I just had a very lengthy discussion with David Didier at Entry Express. He gave me permission to post the following: It is Entry Express' position that if a test was open for entries PRIOR to the new scratch policy taking affect (last Friday), those folks who scratch via Entry Express prior to the close of the event, will NOT be subjected to the scratch fee. He realizes that some folks have already been charged this fee, but rest assured that fee will be reversed once Tara is back in the office next week. If you were one of the folks who was charged this fee, please feel free to send David an email at [email protected] as a gentle reminder to reimburse you of your scratch fee. They are working very hard to fix the glitches in the new software.

For the record, I have no direct connection to anyone at Entry Express. I am a hunt test secretary for any event that closed on Monday, so I have been talking with Mr. Didier about some of the problems we encountered. This is how I learned the details about the scratches posted above.


----------



## Duffy (Jun 4, 2014)

That ought to wrap it up. All legitimate offense has been made right.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Bear with me - I'm having a hard time with many of these negative posts made in the most part by folks that I don't know. I'm confident they're sincere and I realize a forum like this allows a good place to vent. 
But then there is another view and I'll suggest it may be the silent majority 

Someone asked about EE ownership - from what I think I know EE is owned by the National Retriever Club and the National Amateur Club; the MNRC is not an owner. EE is on the hole meaning out of pocket finds 5 of the last 7 years and overall in the red. EE has 1 paid employee and that is Tara, 
The 2 National clubs have a BoD that not paid and all of these people are out there among us each weekend. they all do this for the love of the sport, their dogs and yes each of us 

EE is a subsidized company, subsidized by each . They have no reserve find, they have no money for upgrades, no money! 

The root problem is the limited entry and that has been beat to death here. Since the limited entry came about we've learned how to edge around the system, we've learned that a master entry comes before integrity and we've learned that sportsmanship applies to the other guy 

Following the threads back - we asked for these EE mods because there was change and we have to make rules to regulate ourselves without rules. 

For the bumps in the road EE has experienced do you really think those things were done on purpose? 
For me I believe it will straighten itself out so for you guys that have never experienced a hiccup please go ahead and point out the imperfections. For others consider before you hit the keyboard as we affect others and particurily the newcomers. 

Last point : ask yourself why you do these dog sports, is it for the retrievers, for the training, to be with your friends, to experience the outdoors. 

Just me here and I don't think my point of view is so different 
Dk


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dave 

Explain to me why - in a FT - I should have to pay $10 for a scratch before the close. Charge me $4.50 - the same as you charge me for entering. I won't like it, but I'll accept it. Explain to me why I should be charged $10 for a scratch before the close. For the good of the sport? Really?


Ted


----------



## dnevitt (Jan 26, 2009)

I want to remove a dog from a Master Hunt Test. It says to click remove by your entry. I am on the waiting list and do not see the red remove by the entry. How do I remove the entry?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Dave
> 
> Explain to me why - in a FT - I should have to pay $10 for a scratch before the close. Charge me $4.50 - the same as you charge me for entering. I won't like it, but I'll accept it. Explain to me why I should be charged $10 for a scratch before the close. For the good of the sport? Really?
> 
> ...



I agree with you Ted, its just like the banks charging you a fee at the ATM machine to access your own money.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Guys I apologize for # 150 ; not for the intent of the message but the grammar and punctuation 
Just because I'm from Alabama we don't all speak and write like I did ! The phone rang and I hit "done" 

Ted I can't explain anything because I'm not in that loop and no part of the decision. What I am confident in is that malicious or hardship was not intended. We know these people and their everyday actions don't portray anything except encouragement for the sport. 

Marty and I debated this same question in our home, likely since EE has been in existence we have only scratched a very few times and for what we spend a charge like this is insignificant however I totally get the point. 
Pick up the phone and call them rather than incite the masses 
Your a leader and others follow your actions so just be careful please 
Dk


----------

