# limit on master test



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

I was just looking at Entry Express and the test with limits are filling up quick.
Maryland Retriever club's June 1st test in Delware is already filled up. 
Susqhuehanna Retriever Club on May 19 is 8 short of their limit. 
Rappahannock River Retriever Club's test in April already filled its double master with its 60 entries in each. 

The days of waiting around are over if the club has a limit.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I can't wait to see how this is gonna play out, both for the clubs, when the scratches come in... and for the dog works, when all those not ready run anyhow because they already paid.

Pinelands is gonna run May 4-5 if you want to come up Nick. 2 masters of 60, hasn't opened yet on EE. Nice affair, lunch on Saturday, continental breakfast both mornings, I think... Good raffle for a 55" TV too.


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

Darrin I love running at Pinelands great club and the nicest bunch of people. You can gain 10 lbs running there with all the food they have at the club house. I donated a hunt last year to their raffle and Roger Everett won. I donated a hunt again this year. If I lived closer I would defiantly join the club. I doubt I will be running any test this year. I have a young pup I am going to try derbies with and go straight to master when she is ready and my other 2 are already MH's I will be running them in Q's.

Can't you scratch before the close and get all your money back without a vet note.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm just wondering how the limits will play out. Just a "what if" scenario.... "what if" a bunch of volunteers don't get in because an extra Pro Truck or two with 20 dogs shows and fills entries? Are the volunteers who'd normally be running dogs going to still show up and work to put on a hunt test? 

It's supposed to make tests easier for a volunteer based club although, I can see it backfiring at some point.


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'm just wondering how the limits will play out. Just a "what if" scenario.... "what if" a bunch of volunteers don't get in because an extra Pro Truck or two with 20 dogs shows and fills entries? Are the volunteers who'd normally be running dogs going to still show up and work to put on a hunt test?
> 
> It's supposed to make tests easier for a volunteer based club although, I can see it backfiring at some point.


Good point. But someone will step up and help. I know I usually end up throwing birds when I am running.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I can't wait to see how this is gonna play out, both for the clubs, when the scratches come in... and for the dog works, when all those not ready run anyhow because they already paid.
> 
> Pinelands is gonna run May 4-5 if you want to come up Nick. 2 masters of 60, hasn't opened yet on EE. Nice affair, lunch on Saturday, continental breakfast both mornings, I think... Good raffle for a 55" TV too.




As far as your concerns about the quality of the dog work, "they" already enter before the dog is ready. Nothing new there. I see it every time I judge, Especially in Master. Gotta get that MH before they're 3 years old.......-Paul


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'm just wondering how the limits will play out. Just a "what if" scenario.... "what if" a bunch of volunteers don't get in because an extra Pro Truck or two with 20 dogs shows and fills entries? Are the volunteers who'd normally be running dogs going to still show up and work to put on a hunt test?
> 
> It's supposed to make tests easier for a volunteer based club although, I can see it backfiring at some point.


Send an email out to the club before it goes live on EE.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

I personally do not think it is going to have much of an impact. Most of the clubs that are putting limits on are those who most likely in the past year or so have gone over the magical number by a few dogs and had to split. I am pretty sure that in the end, we are only talking about a few people who are going to be left out, when a club holds a single master and uses limit. 

Of course, now with a double master, when a limit of 60 is used for that, you are really going to lose dogs, but that is because a double master brings everyone out. Our club normally only had 50-60 dogs in the master stakes (last two years, only 40 before MN qualification change), but when we held a double master, we had over 100 dogs in each one.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Hunt tests originated for the weekend warrior or amateur. Maybe some consideration should be made that when a am runs their own dog there is more likely to be more single individuals on the grounds able to volunteer. When a pro shows up with 20 dogs and one or two owners, they've kept 18 potential volunteers from being there to help. 

Maybe it's time to say, "if you're a pro with 10 dogs you need to show up with 2 full time helpers or help pay to hire additional volunteers?" It's not a fun thought although, it's a lot of "thankless" work when there are 4-5 pro's at a test with a total of nearly 80 dogs and no extra help shows up with those 80 dogs. 

Believe me, I'm not saying that the Pro's don't chip in and help because lots of them do help out as much as possibly although, they're working for a client at a hunt test and that client deserves to have their Pro's attention focused on the dog they are paying the pro to run. The Pro shouldn't be splitting time working if he/she is being paid to be at a hunt test.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Hunt tests originated for the weekend warrior or amateur. Maybe some consideration should be made that when a am runs their own dog there is more likely to be more single individuals on the grounds able to volunteer. When a pro shows up with 20 dogs and one or two owners, they've kept 18 potential volunteers from being there to help.
> 
> Maybe it's time to say, "if you're a pro with 10 dogs you need to show up with 2 full time helpers or help pay to hire additional volunteers?" It's not a fun thought although, it's a lot of "thankless" work when there are 4-5 pro's at a test with a total of nearly 80 dogs and no extra help shows up with those 80 dogs.
> 
> Believe me, I'm not saying that the Pro's don't chip in and help because lots of them do help out as much as possibly although, they're working for a client at a hunt test and that client deserves to have their Pro's attention focused on the dog they are paying the pro to run. The Pro shouldn't be splitting time working if he/she is being paid to be at a hunt test.


I think the rule book has enough rules in it, already.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

TN_LAB said:


> I think the rule book has enough rules in it, already.


Like limiting entries on tests? That was a crummy one.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

j towne said:


> Good point. But someone will step up and help. I know I usually end up throwing birds when I am running.


That's the whole reason that HT work. Volunteers. Without them you have to limit entries.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

If we're worried about the pro knocking the amateur out, easy solution Limit on # of dogs any single handler can run @ a test or at a stake. The Pro would be more prone to run the dogs they knew were ready, rather than pushing entries because it's a double master, and you leave the spots open for Amateur Handlers. Realistically thought in AZ they ended up having 5 spots open each day, for their double master, with everyone pulling out after limiting out way in advanced.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

The entries are becoming so large that the club can't support enough grounds, equipment, workers, and last minute judges. It's better to limit entries than to cancel the event due to its own over popularity. 



J.O.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

counciloak said:


> The entries are becoming so large that the club can't support enough grounds, equipment, workers, and last minute judges. It's better to limit entries than to cancel the event due to its own over popularity.
> 
> 
> 
> J.O.


I can see grounds being a limitation. Most of the folks I've spoken with agree that there is one primary problem, help. 

The ratio of dogs versus humans at a hunt test has become way too low for the sport to be healthy. Who would have thought having too many dogs at a hunt test would cause a problem?


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

So... Now that we've had a few months to see just how many clubs would take advantage of the new rule allowing them to limit Master entries, I'm curious as to what others are seeing.

It seems more clubs, than not, are imposing 60 or 120 dog limits. 

Master stakes are filling up weeks or months before the official closing date. 

Junior, Senior and O/H Qual entries at those tests tend to be much smaller than in non limited tests. 

With the fast approaching Master National qualification deadline (July 31st), it appears that many entries were for insurance purposes and as dogs get qualified at other tests, handlers are scratching out of future tests that were limited out. In some cases they are doing so before the close, thereby opening a spot for someone else, in others, it's post closing and clubs are losing out on those entries and giving partial refunds (in accordance with their scratch policy).

Many handlers still needing a pass or two to qualify can't find a test to run, due to limits.

Handlers moving up from Senior to pursue a Master title are finding it difficult, in some cases to find Master tests to run, since most are filling up so early.

So, although the rule is beneficial to clubs with limited grounds or help, are you seeing any other positive, negative or unexpected consequences in your area?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dan Wegner said:


> So, although the rule is beneficial to clubs with limited grounds or help, are you seeing any other negative or unexpected consequences in your area?


Around here, most seem to have gone with limits. Few (none that I am aware of) filled up significantly before the close, which makes sense since almost every one of them set the limit at what they typically get anyway. It is just an insurance policy. I haven't seen any downsides in this area, but our season is over by about the first of June so the rush for MN qualifying doesn't impact things in these parts.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

My club is a very small one, and our grounds are quite limited. If we ever had to split we would be in big trouble, LOL.

I don't see that limiting entries is a problem for the volunteers... if they are waiting until the last day to enter they are taking a chance just like anybody else. When I want to enter a limited test, I know darned well that if I want to ensure my ability to enter I need to do it early.

Setting limits makes things easier for the club, they know ahead of time what they have to provide. The problem of volunteer help is, in my view, a separate issue.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

It has to be very difficult to arrange for extra judges, land, throwers, ducks, etc. in a matter of a few days. The limits will make it easier to set up good tests...no doubt. On the other hand, limits will, without a doubt, cause someone to get shut out of a HT. The unintended consequences are yet to be discovered. We have SEVERAL HT's within a reasonable distance but we also have several conflicts that make it difficult to enter enough tests. This spring, one was cancelled because of Easter and on conflicted with the Grand. This fall, one conflicts with the MN and one with the Grand. In addition, the number of tests available to tune up for the MN and get started on next year's MN is limited. The early date for the MN and date change of one test from mid-Sept. to early late Oct. has left one HT within reasonable distance to get ready for the MN. Take a look at the entries for the Kansas City RC test in Sept. and see the result. I think the limits will make for a LOT less stress on the committee members and better tests but I'm not sure what can be done to allow adequate access to everyone.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

It's poor planning to asume that your help is going to come from the participants. It's one thing to have something come up during the event and I've seen just as many pros step in as AM's. Other areas of the country may be different but we don't sign up a test then sit back and hope enough "volunteer" handlers sign up.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

So what should be done:
a) limited entry also limits dogs/handler
b) clubs that have limited entry loose mileage restrictions
c) increase penalty for non-medical scratch (before closing date) to 50% of entry fee
d) all the above
e) none of the above


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

The logistics of just having 2 handlers running basically all the dogs, from the point of view of airing/getting dogs to the line in a timely manner, is also mind boggling.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Here is a good example of bad things happening from this past weekend. 

13 of 60 entries 22% scratched mostly handled by one individual. A HT that we would like to have gone to but it was full early. 

Not to indict any one person, just the system. 

Another I looked at scratched 20 of 120 entries for 17%. with what are probably pros with multiple entries having the great majority. Our 2nd choice but also full by the time we checked it out.

Sure would like to see NO REFUND for scratch after closing. Help the clubs out with maybe a party for the workers or some such. I am betting though that some have enough pull with vets to get a medical waiver..... for their 9 dogs scratched.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

JTS said:


> I certainly don't want to be involved putting on a test for just 2 Pro's to make their living that weekend................


X2 not volunteering & showing up to throw entirely for 2 Pros, If the pros are getting paid to run dogs all day, they can pay somebody to throw their birds, even pay the judges to judge. I do not take my time off, join clubs and volunteer, so someone else can make a living. I do it because I love the sport and others have volunteered their time and effort to do the same for me. Sour grapes? You bet, but I get to be greedy with my free time


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Tim Carrion said:


> So what should be done:
> a) limited entry also limits dogs/handler
> b) clubs that have limited entry loose mileage restrictions
> c) increase penalty for non-medical scratch (before closing date) to 50% of entry fee
> ...


I think a good option would be for clubs with limited entries to be allowed to have conflicting dates with nearby clubs. This could possibly allow clubs to hold more than one test during a given season. I also think a non medical scratch should not be allowed a refund. I know there are ways around that but it could help. I'm not in favor of limiting dogs per handler.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

JTS said:


> 2 pros have 50 of the Master dogs entered..........the limited flight of 60 has been full for weeks and the event is 2 months away. Will 60 dogs be run the day the event starts? Will said Pro's have scratches? What if one of either pro pulls out of the event after it closes? (Which has happened)
> 
> So basically this club is reliant on these 2 pro's for their event.....what if something goes askew, then what? Their trucks will have to be parked at the holding blinds..run one dog after another........how does the honor get accomplished?
> 
> ...


You can't blame the pros for this! it's an unintended consequence of imposing entry limits on HT's. Actually, these pros are VERY capable of running that number of dogs without delaying the hunt test. As a matter of fact, it will go more smoothly that with 60 different handlers. My point is that SOMEONE will not be able to run their dog at this test because of the limits... might be a pro or an AM but someone being left out is a problem. Again, the reason this happened is that this test is the only one within a reasonable driving distance before the MN. If you check, most of them are MN qualifiers and need the event to get ready. There will also be some "new" dogs who need every test they can get to get their MN title and qualify for next year's MN. Again, the problem is the limit....not the pros. I'm sure they would rather enter closer to the event so they can better evaluate their dogs to avoid scratches. Some of the dogs they've entered aren't even back at the kennel yet.

I don't like any of the multiple choices offered. One suggestion I have is to eliminate the limits and close entries earlier so that, if and additional flight is needed, more time is available to set it up properly. Also, a little more leeway in the number of dogs allowed in a flight would help.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

For many clubs, adding an additional flight isn't a matter of time. It's about grounds, help and equipment.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

I understand why clubs would want to limit entries. Grounds, workers, etc. Don't have an issue with that. Limits are however causing issues for those who would like to enter their dogs.

Not sure limiting the number of dogs a handler can enter/run would work. People find ways around rules like that. Like a pro listed as the Handler on 10 dogs and his/her assistant or significant other listed as the Handler on another 10 dogs. Not saying all pros would do that, most are pretty stand-up folks, but there are a few bad apples out there and we see them every weekend. You KNOW it would happen.

I do like the idea of clubs adopting a No Refunds policy after the close (except for death, injury or season, of course). Perhaps that would help to encourage folks to scratch (if they must) before the close so others could enter, or as someone suggested, go toward a worker dinner or party.

I also would like to see the 200 mile restriction for other tests lifted when a club decides to limit their entry. They are in effect saying "We are pretty sure that we will have 60 or 120 dogs". As a result, other clubs should be able to offer tests within that 200 mile radius.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

The MN program is being poisoned by a few pros. If a Pro has more than 10 dogs in my flight I will not work. I'm not spending my weekend helping some big time pro earn a living. The Am is being pushed out of the MN program and looks like the weekend tests as well. Maybe it's time to debate establishing a Pro vs Am Hunt Test program.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Dan Wegner said:


> I understand why clubs would want to limit entries. Grounds, workers, etc. Don't have an issue with that. Limits are however causing issues for those who would like to enter their dogs.
> 
> Not sure limiting the number of dogs a handler can enter/run would work. People find ways around rules like that. Like a pro running 10 dogs and his/her assistant or significant other running the other 10.
> 
> I do like the idea of clubs adopting a No Refunds policy after the close (except for death, injury or season, of course). Perhaps that would help to encourage folks to scratch (if they must) before the close so others could enter, or as someone suggested, go toward a worker dinner or party.


This may be stupid but reading this reminded me of something in horse racing called an also eligible list. When too many horses enter a race there is a drawing and the first, usually 10, are selected. Then 5 more horses are drawn and they are the also eligible. If a horse is scratched a day or more before the race an also eligible gets in.

Of course I would assume a system similar to this for a test the entries and also eligible dogs would be on an entry date basis. Just a thought.


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

> This may be stupid but reading this reminded me of something in horse racing called an also eligible list. When too many horses enter a race there is a drawing and the first, usually 10, are selected. Then 5 more horses are drawn and they are the also eligible. If a horse is scratched a day or more before the race an also eligible gets in.
> 
> Of course I would assume a system similar to this for a test the entries and also eligible dogs would be on an entry date basis. Just a thought.


I like this idea of any offered. 

That would require EE to set up the list for "also eligible" dogs and AKC to allow the substitutions. Might make the Hunt Secretary's job a bit harder, but at least the club gets the full number of entries when a large number scratch.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Easiest fix if your going to limit # of entries in Masters it only makes since to limit # dogs per handler. UKC does 30 dogs in finished stake and 8 or 12 dogs (clubs choice) per handler per event, all stakes. It ensures that a single person cannot run %50 of the dogs in any particular stake, nor a single handler cannot hold up different stakes at an events by running a bunch of dogs in separate stakes. It leaves openings for those running less dogs.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

wojo said:


> The MN program is being poisoned by a few pros. If a Pro has more than 10 dogs in my flight I will not work. I'm not spending my weekend helping some big time pro earn a living. The Am is being pushed out of the MN program and looks like the weekend tests as well. Maybe it's time to debate establishing a Pro vs Am Hunt Test program.


Maybe your clubs are different but around here they don't exist without pros. The AM will only be pushed out if they let themselves be by having your type of attitude.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Easiest fix if your going to limit # of entries in Masters it only makes since to limit # dogs per handler. UKC does 30 dogs in finished stake and 8 or 12 dogs (clubs choice) per handler per event, all stakes. It ensures that a single person cannot run %50 of the dogs in any particular stake, nor a single handler cannot hold up different stakes at an events by running a bunch of dogs in separate stakes. It leaves openings for those running less dogs.


Talk about rocking the boat! Whoooaaa!!!!


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Brad B said:


> Maybe your clubs are different but around here they don't exist without pros. The AM will only be pushed out if they let themselves be by having your type of attitude.


I said a few Pros . There are many Pros who contribute at events including judging. I can afford to play the game regardless of what the Pros do . I have my own training property and train with many Pros . The point is a FEW are taking advantage of the current rules and are starting to have a negative impact at least from my perspective. Just sayin


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

duk4me said:


> This may be stupid but reading this reminded me of something in horse racing called an also eligible list. When too many horses enter a race there is a drawing and the first, usually 10, are selected. Then 5 more horses are drawn and they are the also eligible. If a horse is scratched a day or more before the race an also eligible gets in.
> 
> Of course I would assume a system similar to this for a test the entries and also eligible dogs would be on an entry date basis. Just a thought.





Kevinismybrother said:


> I like this idea of any offered.
> 
> That would require EE to set up the list for "also eligible" dogs and AKC to allow the substitutions. Might make the Hunt Secretary's job a bit harder, but at least the club gets the full number of entries when a large number scratch.


if I understand you correctly, you are proposing a "wait list" of sorts. Essentially, EE elected not to maintain a "wait list" but instead, if someone scratches before the close, they open up that spot on EE so someone else can enter. 

EE and the club secretary need time after the closing date to do the random draw and to "tweak" it to move handlers around, prepare catalogs, etc. There really isn't any time after the event has closed to accept scratches and fill them from a "wait list" or "also eligible" list. Handlers just have to watch the test on EE in the days leading up to the close to see if a spot opens up. It has the same effect. Allows late comers to get in, but a spot has to open and they have to act on it quickly before the closing.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Easiest fix if your going to limit # of entries in Masters it only makes since to limit # dogs per handler


It is not too difficult to make a limitation equitable. Simply have the drawing configured so that ALL who would like to enter one dog and enter before the closing, can do so before any handler gets to run two. ...and so forth.

Simply enter all your dogs, prioritise your entries as to which of your dogs get to run if one or more can not, and see how you make out

john


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Dan wrote "Essentially, EE elected not to maintain a "wait list"". Actually it is the AKC policy to not allow a wait list and that entries are closed at the closing date, period. As for other concerns, the club can set an earlier closing date, send out "privliged comunications" to alert members and friends to the EE opening date and be rigorous in enforcing a no refunds policy except as mandated by rule. I know of clubs that just do not have the land or manpower to hold a 2 or 3 stake master. So I'm all for letting clubs make that decision for themselves. 
BTW - In reviewing the regs I was surprised to see in the rules that clubs cannot set dates to run into Monday, unless it's a holiday or a midweek specialty. I guess that was to prevent a club from having a 90 dog stake scheduled for Sat-Mon with the expectation they'd finish Sunday regardless. Is that new, or did I just miss something, again.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Hey maybe on the limited hunt tests have open registration for all comers and then have a lottery to see who gets in. Then have clubs give NO REFUND to scratches and full entry back to all who were not allowed in.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

jacduck said:


> Hey maybe on the limited hunt tests have open registration for all comers and then have a lottery to see who gets in. Then have clubs give NO REFUND to scratches and full entry back to all who were not allowed in.


Now that there is just funny! I can hear the gnashing of the teeth and the wailing from here!!!!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

So, to get your dog entered, you might need to be part of the "in crowd" to get the "privilged communications"?

Ethical?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> X2 not volunteering & showing up to throw entirely for 2 Pros, If the pros are getting paid to run dogs all day, they can pay somebody to throw their birds, even pay the judges to judge. I do not take my time off, join clubs and volunteer, so someone else can make a living. I do it because I love the sport and others have volunteered their time and effort to do the same for me. Sour grapes? You bet, but I get to be greedy with my free time


I don't understand the pro bashing! Not trying to pick a fight but they are just reacting to a situation over which they have no control. If you do, in fact "love" the sport, you would realize how much the pros mean to it and help figure out a way to correct it. The AM's had the same opportunity to enter. The limits are the problem NOT the pros!


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

duk4me said:


> This may be stupid but reading this reminded me of something in horse racing called an also eligible list. When too many horses enter a race there is a drawing and the first, usually 10, are selected. Then 5 more horses are drawn and they are the also eligible. If a horse is scratched a day or more before the race an also eligible gets in.
> 
> Of course I would assume a system similar to this for a test the entries and also eligible dogs would be on an entry date basis. Just a thought.


I like it! I don't think it's the entire solution but it would help!


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Easiest fix if your going to limit # of entries in Masters it only makes since to limit # dogs per handler. UKC does 30 dogs in finished stake and 8 or 12 dogs (clubs choice) per handler per event, all stakes. It ensures that a single person cannot run %50 of the dogs in any particular stake, nor a single handler cannot hold up different stakes at an events by running a bunch of dogs in separate stakes. It leaves openings for those running less dogs.


That MIGHT help but overlaying one organizations rules on another one isn't a good idea. UKC doesn't require any additional test once a dog has its HRCH title to qualify for the Grand. Also, UKC found it prudent to raise their dogs/handler up. They haven't had time to evaluate it yet but I think it was a good idea.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

wojo said:


> I said a few Pros . There are many Pros who contribute at events including judging. I can afford to play the game regardless of what the Pros do . I have my own training property and train with many Pros . The point is a FEW are taking advantage of the current rules and are starting to have a negative impact at least from my perspective. Just sayin


Many of us don't know what you are talking about. Without you being more specific and pointing out how these guys are taking advantage, it seems like you are just pro bashing.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

There are a LOT of good ideas. Here's the problem with "NO REFUNDS" at least IMHO. It applies to Pros & AMs equally. I have a dog I'm trying to qualify for MN and I need 6 passes. There are about 10 tests within 400 miles. Lets say I get 3 passes in the fall & only need 3 more. I get two more passes and I enter another test. before that test takes place, an additional test is getting ready to close so, for insurance I have to enter that test or take the chance that ALL the tests I have attended, paid for, gas money, lodging will have gone for naught. Now, with the limits, the number of insurance tests might got to two or even three. It's not really fair not to get a refund because I was only doing what the system forced me to do. Be that as it may...an even bigger problem is that I knocked someone else out of a chance.

I understand that, in some instances, volunteers, judges, and real estate are a problem and limits is the only answer. I'm finding clubs that can...and have...got all three are using the limits. If we have to have them, use them prudently....not put limits on EVERY HT.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Spag said:


> There are a LOT of good ideas. Here's the problem with "NO REFUNDS" at least IMHO. It applies to Pros & AMs equally. I have a dog I'm trying to qualify for MN and I need 6 passes. There are about 10 tests within 400 miles. Lets say I get 3 passes in the fall & only need 3 more. I get two more passes and I enter another test. before that test takes place, an additional test is getting ready to close so, for insurance I have to enter that test or take the chance that ALL the tests I have attended, paid for, gas money, lodging will have gone for naught. Now, with the limits, the number of insurance tests might got to two or even three. It's not really fair not to get a refund because I was only doing what the system forced me to do. Be that as it may...an even bigger problem is that I knocked someone else out of a chance.
> 
> I understand that, in some instances, volunteers, judges, and real estate are a problem and limits is the only answer. I'm finding clubs that can...and have...got all three are using the limits. If we have to have them, use them prudently....not put limits on EVERY HT.


In most cycles of life there is a cost for 'insurance'. Why would this be different?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Spag said:


> There are a LOT of good ideas. Here's the problem with "NO REFUNDS" at least IMHO. It applies to Pros & AMs equally. I have a dog I'm trying to qualify for MN and I need 6 passes. There are about 10 tests within 400 miles. Lets say I get 3 passes in the fall & only need 3 more. I get two more passes and I enter another test. before that test takes place, an additional test is getting ready to close so, for insurance I have to enter that test or take the chance that ALL the tests I have attended, paid for, gas money, lodging will have gone for naught. Now, with the limits, the number of insurance tests might got to two or even three. *It's not really fair not to get a refund because I was only doing what the system forced me to do.* Be that as it may...an even bigger problem is that I knocked someone else out of a chance.
> 
> I understand that, in some instances, volunteers, judges, and real estate are a problem and limits is the only answer. I'm finding clubs that can...and have...got all three are using the limits. If we have to have them, use them prudently....not put limits on EVERY HT.


If my club finds that you have entered and run another event on the weekend you scratched our event, you will not get a refund. An acceptable scratch is for medical reasons, dog being in season & some other extraordinary situation that would prevent you or your dog from competing. Running in another event won't meet that criteria. You are more than welcome to hedge your bet but don't expect a refund.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> If my club finds that you have entered and run another event on the weekend you scratched our event, you will not get a refund. An acceptable scratch is for medical reasons, dog being in season & some other extraordinary situation that would prevent you or your dog from competing. Running in another event won't meet that criteria. You are more than welcome to hedge your bet but don't expect a refund.


I'm no talking about running another event. I'm talking about entering only one event on a given weekend because I don't know if I need it to qualify for MN. I pass the weekend before your event and qualify..ok, fair enough. I can't get a refund. That's the price I must pay BUT, because of the limits I'm taking up a spot that somebody needs/wants. That's what I'm trying to point out.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> In most cycles of life there is a cost for 'insurance'. Why would this be different?


No problem...I accept that as a chance I take. A couple of bad things happen, however. I'm taking up a spot that someone might need and, if I decide to cut my losses, there's a motel room and several meals that go unpurchased and the local economy also takes a hit.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Thomas D said:


> So, to get your dog entered, you might need to be part of the "in crowd" to get the "privilged communications"?
> 
> Ethical?


I said they "could" do it, but no it's not ethical unless the opening date is public. That's the reason limits were eliminated years ago. Some clubs would let their members enter before accepting any other entries. With the near universal use of EE there is, at least, some transparency. My preference would be a return to the requirement that clubs publish an opening day before which entries are returned to sender - or simply blocked by EE. Gives all an equal shot.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Spag said:


> No problem...I accept that as a chance I take. A couple of bad things happen, however. I'm taking up a spot that someone might need and, if I decide to cut my losses, there's a motel room and several meals that go unpurchased and the local economy also takes a hit.


I agree Spag, I was focused on this:



Spag said:


> It's not really fair not to get a refund because I was only doing what the system forced me to do. .


It's more fair you don't get a refund than it is fair to everyone else for the reasons you mentioned.

Scratches stink in either case outside of medical reasons. I'm guessing people who actually intend to run and committed when doing so rarely get 'blocked out' of a test. Unless, they wait too long so as to earn more interest on their 70 bucks. Seems a lot of pro's are running multiple stakes so a closed Master entry eliminates how many overall dogs on the truck being run?

At least in my experience the last thing a test committee wants to deal with is more last minute change and entry happenings. ;-)


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

I would like to see

No refunds issued by EE even before the close...once your in, you're in unless approved by HT Sec. This would eliminate a lot of system manipulation. 

7 day advance notification required before actual opening. It would take a pro a lot longer to enter 25 dogs than a amateur to enter two or three. As long as we all knew the opening time, it's fair.

My experience has been that an amateur is more likely to try and get refunds for a dog that didn't meet the scratch requirements than the pros. I have dealt with this on numerous occasions where a pro entered a dog for a insurance pass. Then scratched. They did not expect a refund nor asked. Maybe we are just lucky in our area!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Kyle - seen the same and agree.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Kyle Bertram said:


> I would like to see
> 
> *No refunds issued by EE even before the close*...once your in, you're in unless approved by HT Sec. This would eliminate a lot of system manipulation.
> 
> ...


I'm OK with that, makes EE's job easier but you'll never get a majority of folks or the AKC to agree.........


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

This (x) day notification is unnecessary. this is an entry, not a race !!! And this secret squirrel advanced notice to a select few BS is so outlandish, I cannot believe that it has even been mentioned in a serious dialogue

Simply open the entries on a given day and modify the EE entry acceptance program to allow for all handlers who wish to run *a *(read one) dog to do so , before any handler is allowed to run a second dog. If the limit has not been met in this manner,any handlers second dogs entry would be accepted , on a first come basis per the EE computer.

So there you have it , No one runs two till all who wish to, run one, and if there is room, three till all who wish to run two, or four till all who wish to run three .....or the limit is met.

john


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

At an upcoming HT that I am judging, one pro is running 15 dogs and another is running 7. That is 22 out of the 60 dog limit. As a judge, my concerns are getting all these dogs thru the honor. I would hate for the club to be running bye dogs to cover these dogs. The cost in flyers and extra time would make the test financially and time wise very unproductive.

Also I don't feel clubs owe handlers a refund for anything other than bitch in season or injury to the dog.

Dawn


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

john fallon said:


> this (x) day notification is unnecessary. This is an entry, not a race !!! And this secret squirrel advanced notice to a select few bs is so outlandish, i cannot believe that it has even been mentioned in a serious dialogue
> 
> simply open the entries on a given day and modify the ee entry acceptance program to allow for all handlers who wish to run *a *(read one) dog to do so , before any handler is allowed to run a second dog. If the limit has not been met in this manner,any handlers second dogs entry would be accepted , on a first come basis per the ee computer.
> 
> ...


i like it!!


----------



## zoomngoldens (Nov 11, 2004)

Kevinismybrother said:


> I like this idea of any offered.
> 
> That would require EE to set up the list for "also eligible" dogs and AKC to allow the substitutions. Might make the Hunt Secretary's job a bit harder, but at least the club gets the full number of entries when a large number scratch.


AKC already has a similar procedure for agility so the precedence has been set within the organization. They call it the wait list. If someone pulls their entry after the closing date a wait listed dog can take that spot in the trial. Of course there are some AKC procedures the secretary has to follow, but it is used all the time for agility trials and it works great. It seems like a similar procedure could be used for limited hunt tests.


----------



## Al (Sep 4, 2004)

I wonder how Dawn would like to be judging the KCRC hunt test coming up the end of August where 2 pros have taken up 48 of the 60 slots. Club members are going to be real excited about donating time and labor for 2 days while the pros rake in anywhere from $1800 to $2400 in handling fees for 24 dogs each. Many club members will not even get to run 1 dog because 2 pros have hogged 80% of the Master slots. This will probably negatively affect entries in the O/H Qualifying as well.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Why would club members care what the pro is making? They should be glad to host the test regardless of who attends. And maybe those members you claim to not being able to run a dog, should have got off their a%% and entered sooner.


----------



## Al (Sep 4, 2004)

Did hunt tests evolve for the benefit of amateurs or for the pros?


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Hunt tests evolved for people to showcase their dogs abilities not to benefit any one group of people.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Brad B said:


> Why would club members care what the pro is making? They should be glad to host the test regardless of who attends. And maybe those members you claim to not being able to run a dog, should have got off their a%% and entered sooner.


That's pretty much how I feel as well. Any club member 'paying attention' to their 'club' shouldn't miss an entry of their dog or two. As a club member and test worker (or chair) my goal in addition to running a dog is putting on a great test and funding the clubs activities for the next year. I've worked several and not run a dog. The pro trucks are welcomed and most are friendly folks to our club through-out the year anyway. 

I know we've also been pro-active in understanding several Pro's intent and modeled the stakes we're offering around it - so we can plan and accommodate.

The only folks that might feel 'screwed' are the ones not paying attention, not involved in their own club, or just wait too long to enter. That's not the subset I aim to serve.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Let me get this straight . You guys say that the shut out club members , In spite of not being able to enter their one or two dogs at their clubs test, should be GLAD to put on the test for two pros and a few others ????

john


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

So if I was going to run Masters,but wasnt sure if I was able to get off work 2 months in advance...I'm not "paying attention"?


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

I'm saying, the event opens publicly for everyone at the same time and members have the same chance to enter as a pro. If you want to run, then enter your dogs. If you drag your feet and miss out, tough. And clubs should be greatful for the pros bringing that many dogs. Look at where that club's finances would be without those entries. Pro participation is an integral part of maintaining a club and the HT program. 
It's the current system we have to work with. If you don't like it, get involved with the MNRC and get things changed. I'm sure they'd welcome some new help.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Al said:


> Did hunt tests evolve for the benefit of amateurs or for the pros?



I can tell you without question & with first hand knowledge that when AKC HTs were being contemplated there was no idea or thought that it would ever be a game with much pro trainer/handler involvement. The whole intent was to give the dog enthusiast who hunted first, trained his dog to hunt and then was attempting (unsuccessfully - and there were a lot of us in that category) to train his dog to compete in field trials, to provide a venue or game to play in the off-season. The AKC saw it as way to keep a lot more folks involved in the field with their dogs year-round. And this was motivated because of the waning interest in field trials by amateurs in general (the same motivation for a Nat'l Amateur Championship beginning in '57). From that prospective, it has been a success but likely, ironically, due to pro involvement that was not contemplated as the primary source of interest or involvement.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Shawn White said:


> So if I was going to run Masters,but wasnt sure if I was able to get off work 2 months in advance...I'm not "paying attention"?


Nobody said that. But to be devils advocate should the club runs it's business based on your PTO schedule? If you ain't running you ain't working the test either. ;-)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Let me get this straight . You guys say that the shut out club members , In spite of not being able to enter their one or two dogs at their clubs test, should be GLAD to put on the test for two pros and a few others ????
> 
> john


John - 'you guys' I can't speak to. My opinion is the club and it's members know the dates and I have never seen a Master entry fill up in 2 days, 2 1/2 weeks before entries close. I just did a random check on EE and of the various closings and test dates most still have limited entry spots open.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Nobody said that. But to be devils advocate should the club runs it's business based on your PTO schedule? If you ain't running you ain't working the test either. ;-)


Understood..... IMO each club should be able to decide if they want a limited amount of entries per event.

Edit ,I dont belong to any clubs,so my opinion is just that.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Shawn White said:


> Understood..... IMO each club should be able to decide if they want a limited amount of entries per event.
> 
> Edit ,I dont belong to any clubs,so my opinion is just that.


It's tougher than one would think sometimes. Workers, judges (volunteers), judges (volunteers) on standby, birds, lunches, land/water availability, hotel, banquet. Everything that costs money to produce and plan for. All of which come to a final just a few days ahead of the actual test.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Shawn White said:


> So if I was going to run Masters,but wasnt sure if I was able to get off work 2 months in advance...I'm not "paying attention"?


Shawn if you can't make it just hire a pro.


----------



## Gary Southall (Jan 17, 2012)

duk4me said:


> Shawn if you can't make it just hire a pro.


This is what I'm going to have to do. Just because where I work I'm unable to take 6 weekends off a year. I hate it, but, that is what will happen starting next spring. I'll have 2 dogs ready to run Master tests. I hope they, anyone, doesn't put a limit on how many dogs a Pro can run.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

duk4me said:


> Shawn if you can't make it just hire a pro.


Tim ,naaa I'll just run field trials. I'll test my hunting dog come November.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Brad B said:


> I'm saying, the event opens publicly for everyone at the same time and members have the same chance to enter as a pro. If you want to run, then enter your dogs. If you drag your feet and miss out, tough. And clubs should be greatful for the pros bringing that many dogs. Look at where that club's finances would be without those entries. Pro participation is an integral part of maintaining a club and the HT program.
> It's the current system we have to work with. If you don't like it, get involved with the MNRC and get things changed. I'm sure they'd welcome some new help.


2 questions

First WTF does the MNRC have to do with this?
Secondly- what color is the sky in your world?

I’m a frigging volunteer NOT a dern employee regards

Bubba


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Brad B said:


> I'm saying, the event opens publicly for everyone at the same time and members have the same chance to enter as a pro. If you want to run, then enter your dogs. If you drag your feet and miss out, tough. And clubs should be greatful for the pros bringing that many dogs. Look at where that club's finances would be without those entries. Pro participation is an integral part of maintaining a club and the HT program. It's the current system we have to work with. If you don't like it, get involved with the MNRC and get things changed. I'm sure they'd welcome some new help.


Without the entries of the pro, life would go on. Maybe not as we now know it, but there would still be hunt tests. Anytime any one group thinks they are indispensable......well they are.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Bubba, my overall point was if someone doesn't like the rules, get involved and work to change them. Yes MNRC probably wasn't a good example.

Tom, obviously I'm only able to speak from how my club's numbers shake out, but we couldn't afford to lease our grounds and so forth without pros participating in our test. Granted other clubs may not rely on that income but "we" do. 

JTS, you're correct, I currently rely on dog training as an income. However, my point of view on the topic would be the same regardless.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Brad B said:


> Why would club members care what the pro is making? They should be glad to host the test regardless of who attends. And maybe those members you claim to not being able to run a dog, should have got off their a%% and entered sooner.


WOW. The HT game is set up for the PROS ,who knew. I didn't know I should feel lucky to work a HT so a Pros can run., who knew. 

There are a lots of Pros that contribute and respect the AM and the workers. A few take advantage of the system. The AKC Hunt Test program has changed to be focused on qualifying for the Master National. Not saying that's good or bad, just sayin. The hunter has been overwhelmed by the non hunter so the focus will also change again not saying that's bad either. If I choose not to work, because the Pros in my flight are "takers" that's my choice. I'm retired so don't care if we don't finish until Tuesday.

Look at the data posted on Master National site. The Pros influence das increased significantly. And it is the Pros clients that's are the driving force. I have 3 Master dogs that are fun to run and I enjoy sitting in the gallery watching dogs run and visiting with folks. I do work some HT's ,but based on my desire and when judging if the pros volumn overwhelm the work force oh well. The game has changed ,not sure for the better. But it still is fun.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

wojo said:


> WOW. The HT game is set up for the PROS ,who knew. I didn't know I should feel lucky to work a HT so a Pros can run., who knew.
> 
> There are a lots of Pros that contribute and respect the AM and the workers. A few take advantage of the system. The AKC Hunt Test program has changed to be focused on qualifying for the Master National. Not saying that's good or bad, just sayin. The hunter has been overwhelmed by the non hunter so the focus will also change again not saying that's bad either. If I choose not to work, because the Pros in my flight are "takers" that's my choice. I'm retired so don't care if we don't finish until Tuesday.
> 
> Look at the data posted on Master National site. The Pros influence das increased significantly. And it is the Pros clients that's are the driving force. I have 3 Master dogs that are fun to run and I enjoy sitting in the gallery watching dogs run and visiting with folks. I do work some HT's ,but based on my desire and when judging if the pros volumn overwhelm the work force oh well. The game has changed ,not sure for the better. But it still is fun.


I'm aggreance with all but your first sentence. No where did I say that HT was set up for the pros. And I didn't say you should feel lucky to be working a test.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Just a insert here on pros running. I have my friend, a pro, run my pup mostly so I can work or judge another part of the weekend and not interrupt the proceedings. In my mind it just makes things go more smoothly all over. After all it is about the dogs, not the pros or ams or spectators.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> I can tell you without question & with first hand knowledge that when AKC HTs were being contemplated there was no idea or thought that it would ever be a game with much pro trainer/handler involvement. The whole intent was to give the dog enthusiast who hunted first, trained his dog to hunt and then was attempting (unsuccessfully - and there were a lot of us in that category) to train his dog to compete in field trials, to provide a venue or game to play in the off-season. The AKC saw it as way to keep a lot more folks involved in the field with their dogs year-round. And this was motivated because of the waning interest in field trials by amateurs in general (the same motivation for a Nat'l Amateur Championship beginning in '57). From that prospective, it has been a success but likely, ironically, due to pro involvement that was not contemplated as the primary source of interest or involvement.



I'm new to the game so I don't know ANY of the history. What I DO know is that, since I've been involved, I have had an absolute ball and have met a MULTITUDE of new friends. In general, some of the nicest people I've ever met in my life...although you wouldn't know it from reading this forum sometimes. ;-) I am also confident in saying that one of the worst things that can/will happen when a problem arises is to start this moronic Pro vs. AM battle! Both groups have contributed to the success of this game. Look at this problem...what is the problem, exactly? The problem is that this sport has become a HUGE success...so much so, that it has, in some cases, become overwhelming. IMHO, this is a GOOD problem! Instead of bashing each other, everyone needs to have input to solve the problem.

I have seen hunt tests at which the committee has had to come up with resources to provide 2 additional flights after closing. These clubs have done so with and the quality of their HT did not suffer one iota. Everyone cannot do that....I understand....but those are the people who know how to do it and their input would be invaluable.

Now...as far as the pros are concerned. There have been many not-so-kind comments about the pros. One thing that was touched on but wasn't given much noticed is the fact that the pros are actually merely representatives of their clients. My dog is one of the 20-some-odd dogs that is entered in the KC test being handles by a pro. I already mentioned that I have grown to REALLY like this sport and have met some GREAT people. I don't have the time nor the talent to participate on my own so, by limiting/excluding pros, you are limiting/excluding me. Obviously, I don't like it when my ox gets gored any better than anyone else does.

Let's solve the problem...not try to find someone to blame it on! That's really an oxymoron!...trying to find someone to blame success on! 

Here's one solution...let's make it easier to pass a Master Test. That would decrease the number of entries because fewer tests would have to be entered to achieve a MH title and/or qualify for the MN. Now, before the committee members swallow their tongues...mine was FIRMLY implanted in my cheek when I typed this!!!


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Possibly this has been discussed. I have not read each post. Is it true that pros do not pay the Entry Express fee of $4.50 to enter a dog until the time of close, and at close they are charged the entry fee and the processing fee? So, a pro can enter all the dogs he/she wants, fill the 60-dog (or whatever) limited entry, and then scratch without consequence? I, on the other hand, enter my dog and if I scratch it still costs me $4.50 processing fee. Blackhawk Retriever Club's AKC Hunting Test was filled at least 3 weeks prior to close. Then a couple of pros scratched, and the Master (limited to 60) closed with only 52 dogs. Seems like there needs to be some type of overflow entries (first-come, first-served) so the clubs don't get short-changed.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

HiRollerlabs said:


> Possibly this has been discussed. I have not read each post. Is it true that pros do not pay the Entry Express fee of $4.50 to enter a dog until the time of close, and at close they are charged the entry fee and the processing fee? So, a pro can enter all the dogs he/she wants, fill the 60-dog (or whatever) limited entry, and then scratch without consequence? I, on the other hand, enter my dog and if I scratch it still costs me $4.50 processing fee. Blackhawk Retriever Club's AKC Hunting Test was filled at least 3 weeks prior to close. Then a couple of pros scratched, and the Master (limited to 60) closed with only 52 dogs. Seems like there needs to be some type of overflow entries (first-come, first-served) so the clubs don't get short-changed.


No its not true........


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> No its not true........


That and it looks like Blackhawk may have gotten darn near what they wanted. Given it's a 3 day test with Master starting on Friday they could have gone with a natural split at 90 dogs and not closed at 60. But with an O/H Qualifying beginning on Saturday (23 dogs) along with a 26 dog Senior stake they've given themselves very manageable 2 day stakes at 26 dogs each stake. Sunday ought to be a piece of cake. I didn't see pro entries 'clogging up' up the system but rather a pretty organized commitment to achieving quite a bit at the least risk. Have fun judging it Bob!


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

HiRollerlabs said:


> ...Blackhawk Retriever Club's AKC Hunting Test was filled at least 3 weeks prior to close. Then a couple of pros scratched, and the Master (limited to 60) closed with only 52 dogs. Seems like there needs to be some type of overflow entries (first-come, first-served) so the clubs don't get short-changed.


While I'm sure clubs would prefer to fill their limited tests, that was not the intent of the rule. It was created to help ensure clubs with limited resources (grounds, help, etc.) were not forced to split.

Limiting entry numbers provides protection for the club but shortchanges handlers who aren't fortunate enough to get in before it fills.

A wait list is a good idea, but presents other problems. Handlers that make it on to the wait list are in limbo until the close. Not sure if they will get in or not. Can't really book a hotel or take advantage of pre-booking specials, can't make other plans for that weekend, either dog or non-dog related and what if they find another open test or get on a wait list for another event that closes the same day? Wouldn't EE or the club have to confirm wait list members still want to run the event at the time of closing if a slot opens up? It could take several days or maybe even a week to contact wait list members to confirm. Alternately, you could just charge their credit cards if they hadn't called to be removed from the wait list before closing and once again pass the burden of risk to the handlers.

There really is no perfect solution and somebody is going to get short changed.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...-master-test&p=1122985&viewfull=1#post1122985
A system ensuring that anyone who wishes to run one dog is able to do so, before anyone gets to run multiple dogs is as close as it gets....

john


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

You could always enter the old fashioned way and let the club decide who they want to participate. Oh, wait... They are supposed to do entries from the post mark dates.. Hahaha


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

John-every idea seems to have it's merits and it's issues. With the idea of everybody gets one, then another, I can come up with a few issues. Let's say I have 4 dogs. I get one in the first round and one in the second and the test fills up. I'm traveling 5-10 hours to run. I then have to hold my spot until the last day to hope for scratches to get my other two in. The scratches don't happen so then I have to decide to make the trip for 2 dogs or scratch. Last minute decision and may not have solved the problem. 

As Dan said, no perfect solutions.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

True enough....a four dog handler does not get to be able to enter dog 3 and 4 before a two dog handler gets to be able to enter dog 1 and 2.

john


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

HNTFSH said:


> That and it looks like Blackhawk may have gotten darn near what they wanted. Given it's a 3 day test with Master starting on Friday they could have gone with a natural split at 90 dogs and not closed at 60. But with an O/H Qualifying beginning on Saturday (23 dogs) along with a 26 dog Senior stake they've given themselves very manageable 2 day stakes at 26 dogs each stake. Sunday ought to be a piece of cake. I didn't see pro entries 'clogging up' up the system but rather a pretty organized commitment to achieving quite a bit at the least risk. Have fun judging it Bob!


Blackhawk is usually done on Sat. with all stakes. Very few of our members live near the grounds (many live almost 2 hours away), so it is nice to not have to travel again on Sunday. Because Master requires the most land, most workers, most equipment, etc., the "hope" is that it will finish it at least by noon on Saturday. With 52 dogs, it should go well. And, if weather or something else happens we have Sunday. Initially, we had two pros entered with about 20 dogs. When they scratched, a few people who checked back were able to enter.


----------



## Tarball (Aug 12, 2010)

This is an intersting and timely thread:..........a few thoughts.
1. Clubs today either own their own grounds , rely on area landowners or some combination of the two.......which club member has more invested?
2. Many pro trainers own their own grounds or use grounds of local clubs....which pro has more invested?
3. Some pro trainers help at trials, some do not........which one has more invested?
4. A club has its members set up, and run a trial.......if a couple of trucks pro or am run a majority of the dogs .......who has more invested?

The POINT is some people will take advantage of other people or the system. Pro or Am some people are thoughtless and selfish.
Some people give, some take.........some leave ducks around the grounds, some put them back in the freezers. Some
help with mowing some are goldbricks.

Nobody likes to be used. When they feel they are, then the push back starts.
Pro or Am..


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

HiRollerlabs said:


> Blackhawk is usually done on Sat. with all stakes. Very few of our members live near the grounds (many live almost 2 hours away), so it is nice to not have to travel again on Sunday. Because Master requires the most land, most workers, most equipment, etc., the "hope" is that it will finish it at least by noon on Saturday. With 52 dogs, it should go well. And, if weather or something else happens we have Sunday. Initially, we had two pros entered with about 20 dogs. When they scratched, a few people who checked back were able to enter.


are you saying that the 60 max was reached, you had some scratches, and then were able to fit people into those slots?
Interesting. At last years MN I recall AKC saying that once the 60 is reached, there could be no "backfilling" if there were scratches.

Maybe this was before the close date.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Thomas D said:


> are you saying that the 60 max was reached, you had some scratches, and then were able to fit people into those slots?
> Interesting. At last years MN I recall AKC saying that once the 60 is reached, there could be no "backfilling" if there were scratches.
> 
> *Maybe this was before the close date*.


This is how it works...EE will take entries until the max is reached. If there are scratches prior to closing date, then EE will accept the scratches (less the handler fee which covers the credit card fee already deducted by the credit card bank/vendor) and allows entries to continue as long as there are slots open. Once a closing date is reached, EE allows no additional entries or scratches. All scratches after the closing date are covered by the club policies noted in the premium and are handled directly between the entrant and the club.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Seems to be the hot topic of the day. Some good suggestions on several threads, but will AKC listen and make changes? Do they even care? Clubs lobbied for limits for good reasons, but who is responsible to address the collateral damage caused by those limits and the way they are currently being managed?


----------

