# Entry Express Changes



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Here again is a summary of the EE changes that will soon be implemented primarily to accommodate the changing dynamic of the master stake since the advent of the "limited" master, the changed MN qualifications and the MNH title.

1) Events with *limited *stakes will have a standard opening, on Wednesday nearest to 3 weeks prior to an event start. Opening time will be standardized at 8PM CT.
2) Events with limited stakes will have a published, visible wait list capability with waitlisted dogs automatically receiving entry in the order waitlisted when a scratch prior to closing occurs.
3) Scratches will be handled online just as entry occurred, 24/7 prior to event close. This feature will be available to all events (FT & HT) and entries, not just those with limited master stakes.
4) When clubs set up an event with a limited stake, a 24 hour period will be observed at entry opening where only a limited number (set by AKC at 15% of master limit set) of club workers can achieve entry. This process will be controlled by the club admin with unique codes supplied by EE specific to the limited stake. After the initial 24 hours, entries will be open to the general public & any unused codes will be cancelled.

These changes have been developed and are currently being tested by support staff and some club administrators. Implementation should occur with a few weeks unless major issues are identified during testing.

Also to correct another misunderstanding of EE features, the now-suspended VIP program was only an alternate payment system enacted, targeted at high volume users to avoid credit card fees & reduce overall operating costs at EE (a benefit for all users). The VIP program provided NO entry advantages to those using the program, contrary to some claims. This is evident from the fact that since the VIP program was suspended limited master stakes are still filling up within minutes & pros are still getting a large share of the entries. Also the "one-click" notion is not correct for VIP users or anyone else. VIP users did see one less screen than credit card users but through your browser choice you control whether your credit card information is auto-loaded. Further if your credit card info is auto-loaded, it is not possible for a VIP users with more than 8 dogs to achieve entry faster than a non-VIP user. We have tested this extensively, it just cannot happen if user capabilities are eliminated from the consideration. If your finger dexterity is excellent, you will always have an advantage over those with less familiarity with the entry process & poor dexterity. Multiple entries are aided by another feature available to EVERYONE. It enables a multi-dog user to choose the dogs to be entered from his dog list & complete the entry process as one payment transaction for the total of entries. This one transaction feature helps control transaction fees charged by the credit card processor & is a major convenience to any multi-dog users. 

EE needs an alternate entry payment capability to reduce & control the single largest cost EE faces in its operations - credit card fees. EE is exploring adding an electronic check process, that would enable any users to pay by check, as an alternate choice to a credit or debit card. While there is still a fee, it is less than using a credit card. EE is also considering a plan to transfer to clubs the transaction fees that EE cannot control (those fees charged by the credit card processors & deducted before EE even sees the entry fees paid). If & when this takes place, you will likely see, for example, an $80 entry fee become a $82.40 entry fee on the EE website to provide the clubs the additional funds to pay the fees transferred.

EE is also working with the Retriever News (and the Master National Club indirectly) to make available to enthusiasts an improved and wide range of performance history and statistics capabilities. As envisioned, this will enable enthusiasts to make better informed breeding and puppy buying decisions, help users keep up with points and passes in a near-real time environment and provide a much improved system search capability. 

Entry Express wants the same things you want as a club and an individual user - a convenient, low cost means to enter and manage events.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

I believe that most of these changes move us in the right direction. I can you tell you, though, I hope that club administrators do not misuse item number 4...and I think most will not.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

I agree that these definitely head in the right direction!


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

These are the good changes and thanks to EE and all other parties involved. This will make things more fair. However it will do very little to address the real issue and it was never EE or Pros. It is the fact that there are too few slots for to many dogs and that a lot of the demand is being driven by the Master National requirement to re-qualify. The only thing these changes will do it make it more fair on who gets left out.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

krapwxman said:


> I believe that most of these changes move us in the right direction. I can you tell you, though, I hope that club administrators do not misuse item number 4...and I think most will not. I have been HT secretary many times, and I will report any person (pro or amateur) who is not a valid member of our club who attempts to gain access to our privileged "worker only" list.


EE is anticipating that the AKC will provide guidelines or recommendations to the clubs for use of this feature in terms of number of restricted entries, etc. That said, as a practical matter, I do not believe that workers will be restricted to club membership as some clubs do not even have formal memberships. It will be incumbent upon clubs to provide guidelines to their club admin and EE will limit the number based upon the limit selected and guidelines.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

thanks for posting that


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks for the changes and this is def a step in right direction, hope others involved will see this and start some movement on their end as well.


----------



## Jeff Brezee (Nov 21, 2012)

So if I contact each club that I want to run their Master test and tell them that I am willing to work said test before it opens. Could I potentially get preference before the public?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

That's a question for the clubs. EE is just making programming provisions to accommodate what the clubs & governing boards wish to see. The event worker entry provision will only apply to a small percentage of the entry slots, it will be limited in number and only then for a 24 hour period.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Thanks David! Good stuff right there


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Good changes, but I heard there is going to be a scratch fee attached to that capability prior to close and a fee to get on the wait list. Is that true? I didn't think AKC rules allowed a fee to be charged for scratching before closing. Is that going to change? I don't think a fee to be put on the wait list makes sense. An entrants cc information could be stored and only charged if a spot opens up and they are moved into the event. Is there really that much cost to keeping an electronic record on the wait list?


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

Dan Wegner said:


> Good changes, but I heard there is going to be a scratch fee attached to that capability prior to close and a fee to get on the wait list. Is that true? I didn't think AKC rules allowed a fee to be charged for scratching before closing. Is that going to change? I don't think a fee to be put on the wait list makes sense. An entrants cc information could be stored and only charged if a spot opens up and they are moved into the event. Is there really that much cost to keeping an electronic record on the wait list?


As I understand it, $25 fee if you scratch before closing. $10 fee to get on waiting list. And it doesn't matter even if you don't actually get to enter. There is some justification for the charges. EE will experience additional CC charges, not to mention the cost of the changes they are making. 

All this in an attempt to modify the makeup of who gets in and who doesn't. A high price to pay for the 6 pass MN rule. Wouldn't it be nice if MN scrapped it and found another way to limit those who qualify for the MN? I realize they probably have a problem with volunteers and maybe also with grounds but isn't that the problem they have created for the local clubs?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Dan Wegner said:


> Good changes, but I heard there is going to be a scratch fee attached to that capability prior to close and a fee to get on the wait list. Is that true? I didn't think AKC rules allowed a fee to be charged for scratching before closing. Is that going to change? I don't think a fee to be put on the wait list makes sense. An entrants cc information could be stored and only charged if a spot opens up and they are moved into the event. Is there really that much cost to keeping an electronic record on the wait list?


Here's the response I provided in another thread relative to a scratch: "In discussions of a "scratch" on this forum, some folks are interchangeably discussing a scratch at EE prior to an event close, with an AKC defined scratch which occurs after the event is closed for entry, running order determined etc. - as if they are the same. The two scratches are not the same. "Scratches" prior to an event close, are not covered by AKC rules. If a club were taking manual paper entries, a person making such an entry could contact the club secretary before entries were closed, communicate that the dog entry sent should be cancelled, ask for and usually receive a refund. They might even get their uncashed check back, but the refund would not be governed by AKC rules. After the event close, a club likely would have taken action, incurred costs etc based upon that entry received and the "scratch" refund would be governed by club & AKC rules. Scratches at EE can only occur prior to the event close (EE cannot scratch or refund entries once entry closing occurs)."

Now having said the above, yes there will be a fee to scratch at EE prior to the close, just as there has always been a fee to scratch at EE. When the online, 24/7 scratch capability is loaded on the live website, it will enable entrants to scratch online 24/7 without the assistance of EE support. Your entry fee will still be refunded in total. In this automated process you will no longer contact EE support during business hours & EE scratch processing will no longer cause an event to close short of the limit if there is a waiting list. It is currently planned to charge a $25 processing to scratch for a limited master entry and $10 for any other stakes or events without limits including FTs. This pays for the associated cc transaction fees and to help cover the substantial costs to implement the software development.

The wait list fee is more associated with the additional cc fees which are caused by retaining cc information within our server(s) setup to enable an automated entry from the waitlist process. This new process causes EE to fall under different & more expensive PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Std) rules. There is no requirement to use the wait list and there is also no additional charge to be removed from the waitlist. Bottom line, these changes could not be developed and implemented without some significant expense & in some ways actually add recurring costs.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I would not mind if you raised the service fee per entry, with these extra features


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I have a few questions:

So the fee for scratching prior to closing is per dog? 
Is fee applicable regardless of reason? 
So a dog who's on the waiting list will not be charged any fees if they are not lucky enough to get an entry slot?
So with the implementation of the EE prior to close scratch fee, a club could pretty much expect to have scratches handled after closing? I think a club needs to ensure vet certs are on actual letter heads, eh?


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

David,

Thanks. I know you've been working on this for some time. And, no doubt, once implemented will require some tweaks. But all good.

Bob Swift


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

FOM said:


> I have a few questions:
> 
> So the fee for scratching prior to closing is per dog?
> Is fee applicable regardless of reason?
> ...


Scratch fee is per dog, just like it has always been. EE doesn't consider reasons because EE is still charged a cc transaction fee to process a refund regardless & because it would cost EE more labor time that is not available. Change is that it will be via online process 24/7 and fee goes from $4.50 to $10 or $25 (to discourage entry abuse associated with limited master stakes).
It cost $10 to use the waitlist feature for reasons stated in a previous post. No additional fees except normal entry fees charged automatically if the dog gets entered.
If I understand the question correctly, I don't think it should be different than it is now. EE currently processes refunds for those who "scratch" prior to closing if the request is received in writing or requested by phone during business hours prior to the event closing. We don't get into or require an explanation, we just process the refund & charge a processing fee. Clubs will continue to handle any AKC scratches after the close, with the club according to club & AKC policies.


----------



## Brichaus (Jul 18, 2011)

"Multiple entries are aided by another feature available to EVERYONE. It enables a multi-dog user to choose the dogs to be entered from his dog list & complete the entry process as one payment transaction for the total of entries. This one transaction feature helps control transaction fees charged by the credit card processor & is a major convenience to any multi-dog users. "
Does this mean that with one screen I can select 2-8 dogs, enter and pay?


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

David, thanks for your efforts to improve the system. One problem with #1 (open entries 30 prior to event) is that certain events such as those for the GRCA National Specialty traditionally close approximately one month prior to event. This is because catalogs for all events are printed. How will you deal with issues such as this?

John


----------



## Elaine Mitchell (Jun 4, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> Scratch fee is per dog, just like it has always been. EE doesn't consider reasons because EE is still charged a cc transaction fee to process a refund regardless & because it would cost EE more labor time that is not available. Change is that it will be via online process 24/7 and fee goes from $4.50 to $10 or $25 (to discourage entry abuse associated with limited master stakes).
> It cost $10 to use the waitlist feature for reasons stated in a previous post. No additional fees except normal entry fees charged automatically if the dog gets entered.
> *If I understand the question correctly, I don't think it should be different than it is now. EE currently processes refunds for those who "scratch" prior to closing if the request is received in writing or requested by phone during business hours prior to the event closing. We don't get into or require an explanation, we just process the refund & charge a processing fee. Clubs will continue to handle any AKC scratches after the close, with the club according to club & AKC policies.*


I think the point FOM was trying to make was, if I scratch a master dog because of a "legitimate" reason as defined by AKC (bitch in heat, injury, illness) prior to close EE's $25 scratch fee will still apply. If I wait until after close, the club is, by rule required to give me a full refund. If I'm scratching without cause (or with a cause not covered by AKC or the club's scratch policy) I'd be happy to take the entry fee less $25 - it's more than I'm getting from the club. But if it's with cause a handler would be foolish to scratch early. Which means the spot still goes unfilled and the club has the admin of handling the scratch.


----------



## SWIPER (Sep 24, 2006)

Going in the right direction, just need to make the entry system a owner entry so each person has the same chance to enter


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Brichaus said:


> "Multiple entries are aided by another feature available to EVERYONE. It enables a multi-dog user to choose the dogs to be entered from his dog list & complete the entry process as one payment transaction for the total of entries. This one transaction feature helps control transaction fees charged by the credit card processor & is a major convenience to any multi-dog users. "
> Does this mean that with one screen I can select 2-8 dogs, enter and pay?


NO! As I said in a previous post, the dogs must be selected from the dog list page. It is not a payment page. If you have used EE services previously, you have seen this page progression. It is no different, whether you have one or more dogs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

John Gassner said:


> David, thanks for your efforts to improve the system. One problem with #1 (open entries 30 prior to event) is that certain events such as those for the GRCA National Specialty traditionally close approximately one month prior to event. This is because catalogs for all events are printed. How will you deal with issues such as this?
> 
> John


John, national events & specialties of any other type are not scheduled as weekend events & are not controlled in the same way. Further since the national events are not "limited" by the club setup, the default open date is not active. Therefore in practice you could open a specialty just like any other event which is not limited by specific number at any time prior to the event start.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Brad B said:


> Correct, just as it's always been.


No that is not correct. First you click on the event, then enter event, then dogs are selected from a dog list page previously setup by the user, then "next" you are directed to a handler page where the handler is designated, then "next" to a payment page - just like it has always been for entry of 1 or any other number of dogs.


----------



## Brichaus (Jul 18, 2011)

Granddaddy said:


> NO! As I said in a previous post, the dogs must be selected from the dog list page. It is not a payment page. If you have used EE services previously, you have seen this page progression. It is no different, whether you have one or more dogs.


I'm still reading this as it will be (net/net) faster to enter 8 dogs in this manner than it will be to enter 8 dogs individually since there will be 1/8 the payment time. I'm assuming entries are not complete until payment is complete. I understand the benefits of the single payment, it makes perfect sense but from a time standpoint, If I lined up 8 people and had them sequentially enter their dogs, it still sounds like that would take longer than one person entering 8 dogs and paying once. Am I missing something on this?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

David...As I said before, it's a GREAT step in the right direction. Please straighten me out on some confusion I still have. As I undersatnd it, there is a $25 fee for scratching prior to the close. If I wait until after the close, there is no fee. If this is correct, what is the incentive for a handler to scratch before the close and, therefore, the need for the waiting list?

Thanks, 
-Jim


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Brichaus said:


> I'm still reading this as it will be (net/net) faster to enter 8 dogs in this manner than it will be to enter 8 dogs individually since there will be 1/8 the payment time. I'm assuming entries are not complete until payment is complete. I understand the benefits of the single payment, it makes perfect sense but from a time standpoint, If I lined up 8 people and had them sequentially enter their dogs, it still sounds like that would take longer than one person entering 8 dogs and paying once. Am I missing something on this?


Everyone has always entered multiple dogs in one transaction! 

From your "my dogs" page, you click on all of your dogs you want to enter and proceed to the next page. I guess if you click on 8 of your dogs it may take, what ... 2 seconds longer than entering one?

If you're talking about 8 different individuals entering, I don't know how you would measure that. It would all be happening somewhat simultaneously.

JS


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Brichaus said:


> I'm still reading this as it will be (net/net) faster to enter 8 dogs in this manner than it will be to enter 8 dogs individually since there will be 1/8 the payment time. I'm assuming entries are not complete until payment is complete. I understand the benefits of the single payment, it makes perfect sense but from a time standpoint, If I lined up 8 people and had them sequentially enter their dogs, it still sounds like that would take longer than one person entering 8 dogs and paying once. Am I missing something on this?


It is already net/net faster to enter 8 dogs from the "My Dogs" page than it would be to enter 8 dogs individually. This has not changed. You click "Enter Event" it brings up the dogs you have in your "my dogs" listing. You click which ones to enter, whether 1 or 8, click through to the handler page, make any changes needed there and then go to the payment page. You could do it one at a time, if you prefer, of course.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Spag said:


> David...As I said before, it's a GREAT step in the right direction. Please straighten me out on some confusion I still have. As I undersatnd it, there is a $25 fee for scratching prior to the close. If I wait until after the close, there is no fee. If this is correct, what is the incentive for a handler to scratch before the close and, therefore, the need for the waiting list?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jim


Yes, it looks like this provision will encourage those scratching to wait until after the close to do so.

True, someone on the wait list will get that spot, but they will not know until after the closing.

JS


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Spag said:


> David...As I said before, it's a GREAT step in the right direction. Please straighten me out on some confusion I still have. As I undersatnd it, there is a $25 fee for scratching prior to the close. If I wait until after the close, there is no fee. If this is correct, what is the incentive for a handler to scratch before the close and, therefore, the need for the waiting list?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jim


Scratches after the close are handled by the club under AKC rules. Most clubs do not give full refunds but regardless, you will have to abide by club policy for scratches after the close.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

JS said:


> Yes, it looks like this provision will encourage those scratching to wait until after the close to do so.
> 
> True, someone on the wait list will get that spot, but they will not know until after the closing.
> 
> JS


Not so, there is no means of entry after the close. Regarding the waitlist, a dog moving from the waitlist to the entered list happens simultaneous with an EE scratch, nothing happens "after the close" as regards entries or scratches on EE. The wait list is only active during the open entry period.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I know our scratch policy will specifically state an original Vet letter on an official letterhead, no copies. And we will be calling to confirm with the Vet clinics.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Spag said:


> David...As I said before, it's a GREAT step in the right direction. Please straighten me out on some confusion I still have. As I undersatnd it, there is a $25 fee for scratching prior to the close. If I wait until after the close, there is no fee. If this is correct, what is the incentive for a handler to scratch before the close and, therefore, the need for the waiting list?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jim


Given the supposed entry abuse in limited masters, I would suggest that clubs should increase their post-close scratch fees to $25 or more to change a handler's thinking on the scratch process & its costs. In that way clubs would only handle bitch in heat & injury issues like they do now.


----------



## Andy Brittingham (Mar 3, 2013)

EE is planning on charging about $10 per dog to get on the waiting list , to offset an increase in PCI/DSS compliance costs? Did I read that correctly?


----------



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

Granddaddy said:


> Given the supposed entry abuse in limited masters, I would suggest that clubs should increase their post-close scratch fees to $25 or more to change a handler's thinking on the scratch process & its costs. In that way clubs would only handle bitch in heat & injury issues like they do now.


I see a lot of people's concern with legit scratches here with automated system automatically charging 25. Currently 100% refund for injured, deceased, or females in season. Hypothetical situation, pro gets kennel cough and has 15 dogs entered. Knowing you need to keep dogs out and away from other dogs you scratch Monday day of close. Now those 15 dogs are subject to 25 each or 375 dollars. These dogs would be considered unfit to run and any vet would agree and provide a document of such, therefore these dogs would get 100% refund. So the pro would be penalized for scratching and allowing others to enter, I am betting that isn't going to happen and club loses those spots. Same would be true with a bitch in season, if she comes in season a couple days before close she will not be out in time to run.

Just trying to bring another perspective to the situation and a real time potential example. I think the program sounds great though as a step to improvement, but the fees may need to be thought out more especially for scratches that are within reason.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

FOM said:


> I know our scratch policy will specifically state an original Vet letter on an official letterhead, no copies. And we will be calling to confirm with the Vet clinics.


Thinking this is a HIPPA violation waiting to happen


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Andy Brittingham said:


> EE is planning on charging about $10 per dog to get on the waiting list , to offset an increase in PCI/DSS compliance costs? Did I read that correctly?


Yes, EE goes into another security category which increases cc fees plus the software development costs associated with the feature have to be covered - as stated previously.


----------



## Centerfield Retrievers (Jan 28, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> These changes have been developed and are currently being tested by support staff and some club administrators. Implementation should occur with a few weeks unless major issues are identified during testing.


Will the new changes only effect events which open following the implementation, or will existing events that have already opened be included into the new process?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bally's Gun Dogs said:


> I see a lot of people's concern with legit scratches here with automated system automatically charging 25. Currently 100% refund for injured, deceased, or females in season. Hypothetical situation, pro gets kennel cough and has 15 dogs entered. Knowing you need to keep dogs out and away from other dogs you scratch Monday day of close. Now those 15 dogs are subject to 25 each or 375 dollars. These dogs would be considered unfit to run and any vet would agree and provide a document of such, therefore these dogs would get 100% refund. So the pro would be penalized for scratching and allowing others to enter, I am betting that isn't going to happen and club loses those spots. Same would be true with a bitch in season, if she comes in season a couple days before close she will not be out in time to run.
> 
> Just trying to bring another perspective to the situation and a real time potential example. I think the program sounds great though as a step to improvement, but the fees may need to be thought out more especially for scratches that are within reason.


Your particular "what if" is just a matter of timing. If the kennel cough issue began after the close, the club would have to deal with it. If it happened prior to opening entries, the handler would have to determine whether to enter or not at his risk. You are talking about a 20 day period from the event opening until the close. As such that will affect a very small number (I don't think EE has ever dealt with the circumstance you describe in over 800,000 entries & 10 years of operation). 

But understand, EE has never dealt with reasons for a scratch. EE does not have the labor to deal with such issues & EE will not be the arbiter of the validity of a need to scratch. EE has always charged a fee for a scratch, it is just increased due to the entry abuse associated with the limited master & development costs. EE, like any other business, must determine its processes based upon what happens with the vast majority of its business flow. Folks can poke holes in the process, come up with exceptional circumstances etc but a business cannot cover every potential. In practice historically both EE and clubs have handled more scratches than they should have - and with the limited master scratches have spiked exponentially - beyond EE's ability to handle them. When there are exceptions, they will be handled as exceptions but everyone should know that EE does not consider reasons for a scratch & EE does not have the labor time available to start that process.


----------



## Pupknuckle (Aug 15, 2008)

Kudos to you David. Thanks for all that you do to help better our sport. You guys have done a great job!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

JepDog said:


> Will the new changes only effect events which open following the implementation, or will existing events that have already opened be included into the new process?


Don't understand how EE could impose something retroactively. The online scratch feature will likely be implemented where any future scratches would fall under the new process once implemented. The std event opening date & time will be phased in with new events. The waitlist feature may or may not be implemented with existing events, testing will determine that. The worker reservation period will start with new events after the new software release is implemented. Maybe I didn't understand the question but I answered based upon my understanding.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

Bally's Gun Dogs said:


> I see a lot of people's concern with legit scratches here with automated system automatically charging 25. Currently 100% refund for injured, deceased, or females in season. Hypothetical situation, pro gets kennel cough and has 15 dogs entered. Knowing you need to keep dogs out and away from other dogs you scratch Monday day of close. Now those 15 dogs are subject to 25 each or 375 dollars. These dogs would be considered unfit to run and any vet would agree and provide a document of such, therefore these dogs would get 100% refund. So the pro would be penalized for scratching and allowing others to enter, I am betting that isn't going to happen and club loses those spots. Same would be true with a bitch in season, if she comes in season a couple days before close she will not be out in time to run.
> 
> Just trying to bring another perspective to the situation and a real time potential example. I think the program sounds great though as a step to improvement, but the fees may need to be thought out more especially for scratches that are within reason.


Keep in mind that those 15 dogs' entry fees are being paid by their owners, not the pro (entry fees are passed along in the pro's monthly bill.) Any dog scratched prior to close is subject to the $25 scratch fee, each owner will be getting a refund on their original entry fee minus the $25 scratch fee. It's just part of the life of a hunt test dog. Sure the refund is smaller than before, but they still get most of their entry back. The pro isn't eating any of that, nor should he.

Entry Express is doing their best to address the concerns expressed by their users. It's a complex problem and I don't think there's going to be a way to address every single issue. I appreciate their efforts.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Scratches after the close are handled by the club under AKC rules. Most clubs do not give full refunds but regardless, you will have to abide by club policy for scratches after the close.


Will the waiting list be available to the club to fill in for scratches?


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

I cannot believe all the people not reading between the lines. This $25 is not going to assessed to those who scratch or refunded to those who do not. This is actually a $25 admin fee that will be assessed on each MH entry and kept by EE. This puts MH entry fees above $100. Show me where David says that this is not true.


----------



## Centerfield Retrievers (Jan 28, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> Don't understand how EE could impose something retroactively. The online scratch feature will likely be implemented where any future scratches would fall under the new process once implemented. The std event opening date & time will be phased in with new events. The waitlist feature may or may not be implemented with existing events, testing will determine that. The worker reservation period will start with new events after the new software release is implemented. Maybe I didn't understand the question but I answered based upon my understanding.


Realizing that some events had opened far in advance, I was curious if ANY changes would affect them? So, yes you did, thank you.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Thinking this is a HIPPA violation waiting to happen


I'd only confirm that the vet actually wrote the letter nothing more. We've had a few vet letters in the past that looked suspicious (i.e. nice cut and paste job).

Also pets are not covered by HIPPA, nor would I be asking for access to medical information, all I'd be doing is confirming the letter is legitimate.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> I cannot believe all the people not reading between the lines. This $25 is not going to assessed to those who scratch or refunded to those who do not. This is actually a $25 admin fee that will be assessed on each MH entry and kept by EE. This puts MH entry fees above $100. Show me where David says that this is not true.


Handler X enters the event and is charged $100 entry fee plus the $4.50 EE fee. Handler X scratches. Handler X the is issued a refund on his cc of $70.50. Handler X assumes all extra costs associated with scratching his dog with EE for cause or not.

Simple


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> I cannot believe all the people not reading between the lines. This $25 is not going to assessed to those who scratch or refunded to those who do not. This is actually a $25 admin fee that will be assessed on each MH entry and kept by EE. This puts MH entry fees above $100. Show me where David says that this is not true.


I think you are right. The admin fee is changing from $4.50 to $25 for limited Master stakes and from $4.50 to $10 for all others. So whether you scratch before or after the close or run the stake, owners pay a $25 or $10 administration fee to EE (as opposed to $4.50 before the fee change).

It also sounds as if to get on a waiting list owners pay $25 admin fee + $10 wait list fee. If owner gets in, he pays $35 admin fee. If he doesn't just $10?


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

Golddogs said:


> Handler X enters the event and is charged $100 entry fee plus the $4.50 EE fee. Handler X scratches. Handler X the is issued a refund on his cc of $70.50. Handler X assumes all extra costs associated with scratching his dog with EE for cause or not.
> 
> Simple


And handler Y who does not scratch is still paying a$25 fee


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

mitty said:


> I think you are right. The admin fee is changing from $4.50 to $25 for limited Master stakes and from $4.50 to $10 for all others. So whether you scratch before or after the close owners are still out the $25 or $10 charged by EE (as opposed to $4.50 before the fee change).
> 
> It also sounds as if to get on a waiting list owners pay $25 admin fee + $10 wait list fee. If owner gets in, he pays $35 admin fee. If he doesn't just $10?


My understanding is that none of these fees are refunded. You have now paid $35 to try to enter to enter a Master test.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Spag said:


> Will the waiting list be available to the club to fill in for scratches?


The AKC determined long ago prior to the limited master that no entries could be accepted after the close. EE is automating the scratch process to enable clubs to close with a full event if there was a waiting list. There will always be the potential for a scratch after the close that cannot be filled because it is after the close - nothing in this changed EE process changes that issue.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

mitty said:


> I think you are right. The admin fee is changing from $4.50 to $25 for limited Master stakes and from $4.50 to $10 for all others. So whether you scratch before or after the close or run the stake, owners pay a $25 or $10 administration fee to EE (as opposed to $4.50 before the fee change).
> 
> It also sounds as if to get on a waiting list owners pay $25 admin fee + $10 wait list fee. If owner gets in, he pays $35 admin fee. If he doesn't just $10?


I think you have a complete misunderstanding. The entry fees have not changed. They are the club fee plus a service charge of $4.50 - THIS HAS NOT CHANGED. Not sure how you could possibly construe that price structure to be a $25 fee to all entries. $25 or $10 scratch fee only applies to scratches prior to the close. If you scratch prior to the close, it will now be via an automated online process. To scratch a limited master will cost $25 prior to the close (& clubs should charge an equal or greater amount if the scratch is after close), $10 if anything other than a limited master. Clear?


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

David,

I'm excited for the universal opening day/time.....this levels the playing field.

can you give us an idea of when these changes look to go into effect?


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

Granddaddy said:


> I think you have a complete misunderstanding. The entry fees have not changed. They are the club fee plus a service charge of $4.50 - THIS HAS NOT CHANGED. Not sure how you could possibly construe that price structure to be a $25 fee to all entries. $25 or $10 scratch fee only applies to scratches prior to the close. If you scratch prior to the close, it will now be via an automated online process. To scratch a limited master will cost $25 prior to the close (& clubs should charge an equal or greater amount if the scratch is after close), $10 if anything other than a limited master. Clear?


Just to be perfectly clear, the 25 dollar fee will be assessed when someone scratches?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> My understanding is that none of these fees are refunded. You have now paid $35 to try to enter to enter a Master test.


Then you have a misunderstanding. 

You enter an event, it cost you the club entry fee + $4.50 now & as a result of the announced changes, i.e., there are no changes to the entry costs.
You scratch an entry previously made with EE prior to the event close, it currently costs $4.50 plus a call or email during business hours to achieve the scratch. Once the announced change are implemented, you will scratch online just as you entered. You will receive a full refund of the entry fee but be charged a service of $10 for all entries except a limited master which will be charged $25 to scratch prior to the event entry close.

If you try to enter but are unsuccessful there are no fees incurred, i.e., you can't scratch if you are not entered.
If you choose to use the waitlist feature, it will cost you $10 & it is non-refundable. You can remove yourself from the wait list at no additional charge if you do so prior to getting an entry slot which you would have agreed to receiving by being on the wait list. You are not required to use the waitlist feature but if you do & then change your mind about wanting to enter, you simply remove your dog from the wait list at no addition charge.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> *Scratch fee is per dog, just like it has always been. EE doesn't consider reasons because EE is still charged a cc transaction fee to process a refund regardless & because it would cost EE more labor time that is not available. Change is that it will be via online process 24/7 and fee goes from $4.50 to $10 or $25 (to discourage entry abuse associated with limited master stakes).*
> It cost $10 to use the waitlist feature for reasons stated in a previous post. No additional fees except normal entry fees charged automatically if the dog gets entered.
> If I understand the question correctly, I don't think it should be different than it is now. EE currently processes refunds for those who "scratch" prior to closing if the request is received in writing or requested by phone during business hours prior to the event closing. We don't get into or require an explanation, we just process the refund & charge a processing fee. Clubs will continue to handle any AKC scratches after the close, with the club according to club & AKC policies.





Granddaddy said:


> I think you have a complete misunderstanding. The entry fees have not changed. They are the club fee plus a service charge of $4.50 - THIS HAS NOT CHANGED. Not sure how you could possibly construe that price structure to be a $25 fee to all entries. $25 or $10 scratch fee only applies to scratches prior to the close. If you scratch prior to the close, it will now be via an automated online process. To scratch a limited master will cost $25 prior to the close (& clubs should charge an equal or greater amount if the scratch is after close), $10 if anything other than a limited master. Clear?


The confusion arises from one of your previous posts where you wrote that there has always been a scratch fee of $4.50 so it in fact sounded as if the admin fee is being changed from $4.50 to $10 or $25. 

I don't recall ever being charged a scratch fee by EE but maybe I have never had to scratch before the closing...

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. Carry on...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Moose Mtn said:


> David,
> 
> I'm excited for the universal opening day/time.....this levels the playing field.
> 
> can you give us an idea of when these changes look to go into effect?


We're in the middle of testing. Barring any major issues with testing that would cause us to make software code changes, we should be able to implement the changes by mid-March.


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

How much is the admin fee going to be? Is the $25 only charged to those scratching? Why would I pay $25 to scratch before entries close if I have a viable veterinary excuse and if I can receive a *full* refund from the club with proper documentation?


----------



## priceskeet (Jun 30, 2008)

Thanks for trying to make things better !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

It's simple. Entry Express is a business. They have to cover their costs and hopefully make a profit.

If you scratch BEFORE the close, you get all back MINUS $25 if it's a limited master or minus $10 if anything else. Seems fair to me. They are not a charity.

This is geared towards those entering to hold spots then canceling at O dark thirty preventing others from entering. 

$25 would be enough for me to NOT pre enter just to hold a spot if I thought I wouldn't need it. If a girl of mine came in heat before the close? I don't know what I'd do. I'd want someone to get my spot, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay $20.50 to give someone that spot. That's an honest concern. But is it really EE's responsibility to do all this?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

I just looked at a few hunting test premiums on EE. None of them say anything about a scratch fee. The AKC rules say, "Any service fee imposed by the online entry service must be clearly stated in the premium list. All online entry instructions should be clearly written." 

Is the idea of a scratch fee new, or something that has always been charged by EE and I just never noticed?

The AKC Hunting test rules entry fees for bitches in are to be fully refunded and says nothing about whether these things happened before or after the closing date. It seems to me that EE would not be in compliance of AKC rules if they charge a scratch fee to owners of bitches in season. The rules say, "Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. "


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> I cannot believe all the people not reading between the lines. This $25 is not going to assessed to those who scratch or refunded to those who do not. This is actually a $25 admin fee that will be assessed on each MH entry and kept by EE. This puts MH entry fees above $100. Show me where David says that this is not true.


Your reading comprehension skills need a lot of work.


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

I guess I should return my college degrees - yes degrees. Just tell me where it is written that this is not true.


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

mitty said:


> I just looked at a few hunting test premiums on EE. None of them say anything about a scratch fee. The AKC rules say, "Any service fee imposed by the online entry service must be clearly stated in the premium list. All online entry instructions should be clearly written."
> 
> Is the idea of a scratch fee new, or something that has always been charged by EE and I just never noticed?
> 
> The AKC Hunting test rules entry fees for bitches in are to be fully refunded and says nothing about whether these things happened before or after the closing date. It seems to me that EE would not be in compliance of AKC rules if they charge a scratch fee to owners of bitches in season. The rules say, "Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. "


Thank you! All we want is a clear answer and not one that keeps changing to fit the mood of the posts.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

It's pretty simple. Before the current changes, when you scratched before the close, you forfeit the $4.50 you've already paid when you entered the event in the first place. That's being referred by some as the "scratch fee" before the close. EE has kept that to cover the CC fees. Doesn't matter why the dog was scratched.

NOW, with the new changes, for limited MH ONLY, if you scratch before the close, there will be a $25 fee deducted from your refunded entry fee. 

Any other event scratch BEFORE the close, ie, through EE, will be a $10 fee deducted from your entry refund. This is automated now, just like entering an event is, thus the increased fee for scratching. 

If you scratch after the event closes, it's up to the club what to charge, if there is no vet excuse. 

There are no additional fees to enter an event, with the new changes, UNLESS YOU SCRATCH before the close, or you want to be on the automated wait list, which is $10.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

mitty said:


> I just looked at a few hunting test premiums on EE. None of them say anything about a scratch fee. The AKC rules say, "Any service fee imposed by the online entry service must be clearly stated in the premium list. All online entry instructions should be clearly written."
> 
> * Is the idea of a scratch fee new, or something that has always been charged by EE and I just never noticed?
> *
> The AKC Hunting test rules entry fees for bitches in are to be fully refunded and says nothing about whether these things happened before or after the closing date. It seems to me that EE would not be in compliance of AKC rules if they charge a scratch fee to owners of bitches in season. The rules say, "Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. "


I believe you are confusing the loss of the EE processing fee with a " scratch "fee. _*CURENTLY*_, if you enter a dog via EE and scratch for any reason, prior to or after the draw you will incur a loss of $4.50. If it occurs after, you _*CURENTLY *_may be subject to a scratch fee from the event holding club IF the scratch is not due to coming into heat, injury or death of the animal in which case a full entry fee refund is due you BUT NOT the EE processing fee.

Moving forward, EE may impose any " scratch fee " they choose provided it is stated in the premium as I am sure it will be. I cannot understand the difficulty in following along here. And I doubt ANY of these changes have been done in the dark without consulting the AKC Performance Events dept.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> *I guess I should return my college degrees* - yes degrees. Just tell me where it is written that this is not true.


You could but might be subject to a service fee for scratching.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> No that is not correct. First you click on the event, then enter event, then dogs are selected from a dog list page previously setup by the user, then "next" you are directed to a handler page where the handler is designated, then "next" to a payment page - just like it has always been for entry of 1 or any other number of dogs.


True, I took his post to mean that being able to enter multi dogs in one transaction was new, which it's not. I didn't catch that he was asking about it being all on one page.


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

Rainmaker said:


> It's pretty simple. Before the current changes, when you scratched before the close, you forfeit the $4.50 you've already paid when you entered the event in the first place. That's being referred by some as the "scratch fee" before the close. EE has kept that to cover the CC fees. Doesn't matter why the dog was scratched.
> 
> NOW, with the new changes, for limited MH ONLY, if you scratch before the close, there will be a $25 fee deducted from your refunded entry fee.
> 
> ...


Thank you. This makes sense.


----------



## LabsLabsLabs (Mar 30, 2013)

Golddogs said:


> You could but might be subject to a service fee for scratching.


 I bet I would!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LabsLabsLabs said:


> How much is the admin fee going to be? Is the $25 only charged to those scratching? Why would I pay $25 to scratch before entries close if I have a viable veterinary excuse and if I can receive a *full* refund from the club with proper documentation?


For AKC exceptions nothing would change, such scratches are handled by the clubs.

I think you would pay the $25 fee to scratch & get your full entry fee back versus having the club keep an equal or greater amount (maybe even your entire entry fee) for any scratch not requiring a full refund by AKC rules. Most clubs do not refund entry fees for dogs scratched for reasons other than those defined by the AKC. I would recommend clubs not refund scratches except as required by the AKC. This club action plus the EE scratch fee should halt most any entry abuse in the limited master.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I guess I am wondering for the need for the $25 fine for cancelling before closing. Seems pretty steep. 

I know I cancelled a couple of tests before closing for personal reasons last year and the spots were taken so no loss in entries. I am willing to pay the fees for CC use but $25?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

jacduck said:


> I guess I am wondering for the need for the $25 fine for cancelling before closing. Seems pretty steep.
> 
> I know I cancelled a couple of tests before closing for personal reasons last year and the spots were taken so no loss in entries. I am willing to pay the fees for CC use but $25?


I don't generally like the idea of using monetary penalties OR incentives to solve the problem of the overwhelming MH entries. To some folks, $25 bucks is nothing. To others, it's something to consider.

That said, if there are some who make a habit of entering ... without a real commitment to running ... and then scratch later, and this would make them think twice, then I'm all for it.

JMO

JS


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Fixed income is it that you can say? I tend to follow tests I might be interested in next year etc and I find very few scratches, sometime one or two per test, often none.

We do love to travel and test, having done so from the TX Gulf Coast to the Canadian border to the Atlantic seaboard. Being a pessimist I am seeing a drop of tests in the future, the sport seems to be imploding. I know smart folks are working on it and I hope to be wrong for sure.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

All of this "EXTRA $$ aka... fees" crap can be avoided by removing the "Limits". 

just saying. 

Regards !!!!


----------



## Joe Martin (Feb 1, 2006)

Dan Wegner said:


> I also understand a prohibitive scratch fee to curb abuse, but what happens to that $25 per scratch?


Good question, Dan.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

suepuff said:


> It's simple. Entry Express is a business. They have to cover their costs and hopefully make a profit.
> 
> If you scratch BEFORE the close, you get all back MINUS $25 if it's a limited master or minus $10 if anything else. Seems fair to me. They are not a charity.
> 
> ...


Maybe the fair way would be for EE to charge $25 upfront to all who want to be in a lottery for entry. Equal opportunity for all unless you have my bad luck at drawings. That way EE still makes a profit and some winners would emerge.

This BTW is tongue in cheek attempt at humor!!!!!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Is the new pre-close scratch fee really that big of a deal? The HT aren't going to open any sooner than 30 days pre-test now with the new policy. If you don't know your schedule within 30 days, I guess you have to take the chance of entering and maybe eating a scratch fee, or not. 

Kinda mind boggling, now that after all the complaining about MH limits, most of the problems are trying to be addressed and the griping continues. We are getting shortened, standardized opening date/time, we are getting reserved worker spots, we are getting an automated scratch ability and an automated wait list. All the things people, including myself, were asking to be fixed. Huh. Not everyone is going to get in that wants in, that's just the nature of the beast, but we're getting a bit more level playing field as far as getting entered in the first place.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I agree Kim , beside the fact that EE is a BUSINESS, businesses are allowed to make money .


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> Is the new pre-close scratch fee really that big of a deal? The HT aren't going to open any sooner than 30 days pre-test now with the new policy. If you don't know your schedule within 30 days, I guess you have to take the chance of entering and maybe eating a scratch fee, or not.
> 
> Kinda mind boggling, now that after all the complaining about MH limits, most of the problems are trying to be addressed and the griping continues. We are getting shortened, standardized opening date/time, we are getting reserved worker spots, we are getting an automated scratch ability and an automated wait list. All the things people, including myself, were asking to be fixed. Huh. Not everyone is going to get in that wants in, that's just the nature of the beast, but we're getting a bit more level playing field as far as getting entered in the first place.


Not to mention that we have not touched the real problem ... "not enough slots for the dogs wanting in".

There will be just as many dogs shut out after this take affect as there have been. Just different names.

JS


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Rainmaker said:


> Is the new pre-close scratch fee really that big of a deal? The HT aren't going to open any sooner than 30 days pre-test now with the new policy. If you don't know your schedule within 30 days, I guess you have to take the chance of entering and maybe eating a scratch fee, or not.
> 
> Kinda mind boggling, now that after all the complaining about MH limits, most of the problems are trying to be addressed and the griping continues. We are getting shortened, standardized opening date/time, we are getting reserved worker spots, we are getting an automated scratch ability and an automated wait list. All the things people, including myself, were asking to be fixed. Huh. Not everyone is going to get in that wants in, that's just the nature of the beast, but we're getting a bit more level playing field as far as getting entered in the first place.


^^^^^this!!!

if I've learned nothing else about the dog games, what I have learned is that the people playing them love to bitch and moan. Call it inflation if you'd like but move on past the $25.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

JS said:


> Not to mention that we have not touched the real problem ... "not enough slots for the dogs wanting in".
> 
> * There will be just as many dogs shut out after this take affect as there have been. Just different names.
> *
> JS


Not quite sure I agree with this. From a #'s standpoint, at least the grunts have a chance to enter there dogs and that has seemed to be the biggest complaint. But stay tuned.

Good Start Regards


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I agree Kim , beside the fact that EE is a BUSINESS, businesses are allowed to make money .


^^^^This...but maybe be are being overrun with Obama supporters...... 😜


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My thanks to Entry Express for making these changes! IMHO it is a step in the right direction.

I would also like to publicly thank Tara. On a day that I am certain was challenging with all the new announced changes she was cheerful, courteous, professional and competent. She quickly handled my scratch due to a bitch in season and it was quickly filled. Exactly what I have come to expect!

Thanks again!!!
Mark D. Land


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

Simple math. There were not enough spots before and this is not creating any new spots. It just helps manage the number that are out there so some different folks may have a chance to enter or enter easier than before. Limited entry is limited. Thank you EE for doing what you can.


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> Simple math. There were not enough spots before and this is not creating any new spots. It just helps manage the number that are out there so some different folks may have a chance to enter or enter easier than before. Limited entry is limited. Thank you EE for doing what you can.


 I'd disagree and venture to say... the artificial demand being generated by current MN qualifying guidelines is outstripping the supply and causing the imbalance.
EE has stepped up in a responsible and honorable way while MN is still sitting on the sidelines and only they know why. Too bad many out there would like to hear from MN and perhaps AKC. Kudos to EE !


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

When gas prices were very high, we all just to the prices and didn’t have a choice, because we knew that now that what we took for granted. 
We changed our behaviors since then and something that was so trivial to us made us think and stop what is important to us in our daily lives within our means. 
We love our dogs, but we also have what is important to our well being in our standard of living. 

Deduce the demand......


----------



## Gatzby (Dec 16, 2010)

Madluke said:


> I'd disagree and venture to say... the artificial demand being generated by current MN qualifying guidelines is outstripping the supply and causing the imbalance.
> EE has stepped up in a responsible and honorable way while MN is still sitting on the sidelines and only they know why. Too bad many out there would like to hear from MN and perhaps AKC. Kudos to EE !


Thank you! 
EE hasn't caused the problem..... But they appear to be the only one working on it!


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> $10 or $25 (to discourage entry abuse associated with limited master stakes).
> .


Pro trainer is just going to pass this on to his clients. Still not going to stop him from entering 20-30 dogs. Still needs to be a limit on how many one person can run


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Madluke said:


> I'd disagree and venture to say... the artificial demand being generated by current MN qualifying guidelines is outstripping the supply and causing the imbalance.
> EE has stepped up in a responsible and honorable way while MN is still sitting on the sidelines and only they know why. Too bad many out there would like to hear from MN and perhaps AKC. Kudos to EE !


IMO neither EE or MN has caused "the problem". The consumer (read here owner whether a handler or client) has caused "the problem" by creating a demand that is greater than the supply. Kudos to Dave and EE for attempting to address "the problem" with changes in procedure and software. Also to MN over the past few years by changing qualifying criteria and to A.K.C. for allowing limits. This is a complex issue and a lot of the haters have piled on EE and MN because they are the easy targets. The real problem is caused by the consumer who has created a high demand (entry slots) for a limited product (available entry slots).
If left alone, like all economic issues, the supply and demand would eventually balance out either by increased price for the limited product which would decrease demand or by increased supply to cash in on the profits to satisfy the demand.
JMHO
MP


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Dwayne Padgett said:


> Pro trainer is just going to pass this on to his clients. Still not going to stop him from entering 20-30 dogs. Still needs to be a limit on how many one person can run


The idea of limiting the number of dogs a person can enter is not something EE can or would do without it being directed by AKC rules. Keep in mind also that there are no "limited" stakes in FT events or the junior and senior stakes in AKC HT, which collectively, are the majority of EE entries. FTs manage numbers where are numbers issues by allowing competing events without distance restrictions and in some cases the PRTA holds its own events to satisfy demand. If HT enthusiasts want there to be such limits, it would be a topic for the RHTAC and the AKC to consider but certainly not EE.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I think everyone will just need to see how this all pans out, EE stepped up to the plate, took everyone's input, formulated a plan and took action...to me that's a positive thing. It's just like the initial change to allow limited master tests, it was a good thing for many, but the side effects were unknown and we ended up where we are now. Let's see how these EE changes work...at minimum it's a plan that was put into action vs. lip service.

Thanks David for taking the time to answer all the questions over and over again...

p.s. I think it's a no win situation for EE - damned if they do, damned if they don't....personally I like the fact that they did something


----------



## Gatzby (Dec 16, 2010)

Mike Perry said:


> IMO neither EE or MN has caused "the problem". The consumer (read here owner whether a handler or client) has caused "the problem" by creating a demand that is greater than the supply. Kudos to Dave and EE for attempting to address "the problem" with changes in procedure and software. Also to MN over the past few years by changing qualifying criteria and to A.K.C. for allowing limits. This is a complex issue and a lot of the haters have piled on EE and MN because they are the easy targets. The real problem is caused by the consumer who has created a high demand (entry slots) for a limited product (available entry slots).
> If left alone, like all economic issues, the supply and demand would eventually balance out either by increased price for the limited product which would decrease demand or by increased supply to cash in on the profits to satisfy the demand.
> JMHO
> MP[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Camo9244 (Jan 15, 2015)

Cuddo's to EE for stepping up to the plate. Now when is the MNRC/AKC going to step up and fix the mess!!


----------



## Richard Reese (Apr 26, 2006)

FOM said:


> I'd only confirm that the vet actually wrote the letter nothing more. We've had a few vet letters in the past that looked suspicious (i.e. nice cut and paste job).
> 
> Also pets are not covered by HIPPA, nor would I be asking for access to medical information, all I'd be doing is confirming the letter is legitimate.


I never understood a club that has a problem like this. If a handler wants to scratch let him scratch and refund his money minus expenses of the club. He will be back next time. When a club acts as tight as you are stating drives away a future handler. I would never return to a club that acts like this and have two clubs that lost my clients dog entries twice a year for the last nine years. Our club could care less why you scratch. If you can't play with us we will give you your entry fee back and see you the next season.


----------



## Richard Reese (Apr 26, 2006)

mitty said:


> I just looked at a few hunting test premiums on EE. None of them say anything about a scratch fee. The AKC rules say, "Any service fee imposed by the online entry service must be clearly stated in the premium list. All online entry instructions should be clearly written."
> 
> Is the idea of a scratch fee new, or something that has always been charged by EE and I just never noticed?
> 
> The AKC Hunting test rules entry fees for bitches in are to be fully refunded and says nothing about whether these things happened before or after the closing date. It seems to me that EE would not be in compliance of AKC rules if they charge a scratch fee to owners of bitches in season. The rules say, "Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. "


Look up Neuse Retriever Club for your answer.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Down East Labs 217 said:


> I never understood a club that has a problem like this. If a handler wants to scratch let him scratch and refund his money minus expenses of the club. He will be back next time. When a club acts as tight as you are stating drives away a future handler. I would never return to a club that acts like this and have two clubs that lost my clients dog entries twice a year for the last nine years. Our club could care less why you scratch. If you can't play with us we will give you your entry fee back and see you the next season.


normally we "don't care" either, charge a nominal fee and go with it, but with the new EE implementations, it is very feasible that a person will not scratch prior to close even though they know in advance they need to and end up keep a slot tied up so someone else who is one the waiting list doesn't get in. Being anal about the requirements to get a full refund is a way to make the handler think twice about their actions - a vet visit to get a letter is going to hurt more than the $25 EE service fee...


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I don't expect a club to return an entry fee after the close without a valid vet letter. I wouldn't ask and wouldn't be mad if they didn't. My choice to scratch, why should the club eat it, consider it a donation if nothing else.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> I don't expect a club to return an entry fee after the close without a valid vet letter. I wouldn't ask and wouldn't be mad if they didn't. My choice to scratch, why should the club eat it, consider it a donation if nothing else.


That is because you are a stand up person!!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> That is because you are a stand up person!!


Just grateful for the clubs, judges and workers who volunteer all this so some of us can keep playing.


----------



## Richard Reese (Apr 26, 2006)

FOM said:


> normally we "don't care" either, charge a nominal fee and go with it, but with the new EE implementations, it is very feasible that a person will not scratch prior to close even though they know in advance they need to and end up keep a slot tied up so someone else who is one the waiting list doesn't get in. Being anal about the requirements to get a full refund is a way to make the handler think twice about their actions - a vet visit to get a letter is going to hurt more than the $25 EE service fee...


I am sure there will be someone that will waste a lot of time to figure out a way to get around the system. Is that one person worth the time it takes to catch him. To some the answer is yes. To me the answer is no.

EE and David are doing a great thing with this. It will make the clubs job easier and ensure the club workers have an honest chance to enter the tests they are working. 

As the administrator for our club I know who our workers are. If someone calls and ask to get in earlier if he volunteers to work. I would politely decline his offer to get in early. However, if he still wants to help I would accept his assistance at the test. With the limited amount of worker entries there would not be extras for volunteer workers. 

The extra fees will help stop the just in case I decided I want to run entries. It will not stop them all but it will help.

Thank you both for your efforts.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> The AKC determined long ago prior to the limited master that no entries could be accepted after the close. EE is automating the scratch process to enable clubs to close with a full event if there was a waiting list. There will always be the potential for a scratch after the close that cannot be filled because it is after the close - nothing in this changed EE process changes that issue.


Not trying to muddy the waters nor find fault with what EE is trying to do to help ease this problem. Admittedly, I haven't thought this through nor do I pertend to be an authority, however, here are a couple ideas that crossed my mind that mind be worthy of discussion. I agree with those who have identified the problem as one of high demand and low supply. I know that a $25 scratch fee is pretty insignficant to insure that I haven't wasted a TON of money. (i.e. entering a HT to insure that I get the 6 I need to qualify for the MN). Let's say that I need one more pass and there are 3 tests nearby...relatively...before the July 31st deadline. I'm going to enter in all three in case I don't pass the first one. If I don't enter in the other two and don't pass the one I'm entered into, then I've wasted ALL that $ I spent on the other 5 tests that I've run. Hope that makes sense! Now, I pass the 6th test and I don't need the other two that I've entered. There is no incentive for me to scratch early especially if the local club doesn't have a scratch fee. If I scratch after the closing, even if the club has a fee, two things happen....both bad. Two people that need/want to enter don't get a chance to enter and the local committee loses the entry fee.

Two things that *might* help. First, incentivize rather than penalize early scratches. Allow free scratches X days before the closing...the number 3 comes to mind but I can't defend that number. Also, with limited entries, the committee doesn't have to scurry around to get more judges, ducks, helpers, etc. so that the closing date could be closer to the test....say 7 days instead of 12. This would open up a few more slots to those who normally wouldn't get in without adversely affecting the local committee.

Another thought....for what it's worth... is to allow and additional 10-15 entries (or some number) over and above the limit. The extras would be the waiting list. EE could handle scratches just like they do now, charge the handler for the entry and there would be no need for a scratch fee. The only difference...as far as EE is concerned is 10 (if that's the magic number) more entries. There would be no need for extensive software changes nor a scratch fee. Then, after the closing, the local committee would be responsible for notifying successful waiting list entries and/or refunds. EE would get the $4.50 for both plus the waiting list entries that don't get in. The handler who scratches will only pay $4.50 plus any scratch fee that the local committee deems necessary. It's a little more work for the local committee but it insures a full HT.

Just a few thoughts!


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

JS said:


> Not to mention that we have not touched the real problem ... "not enough slots for the dogs wanting in".
> 
> *There will be just as many dogs shut out after this take affect as there have been. Just different names.*
> 
> JS


If I understand all of this correctly you are somewhat mistaken. It does not solve the problem of more demand than supply, you are correct there. But if I understand it correctly there will be more dogs able to run because of the wait list feature. The wait list feature will ensure that late scratches (just prior to closing) will not prevent people from getting their dogs entered before closing. So there will be an increase in the average number of dogs AT CLOSING for limited master tests. That means a few more dogs get to play. How many per test? I don't know but it will be more if there was enough demand that there were dogs on the waiting list.

This wasn't a problem EE created but I think these proposed changes are a huge step in the right direction. If people cannot appreciate that it levels the playing field while also giving the clubs the ability to give some preference to volunteers then nothing is going to satisfy those people.

Kudos to David Didier and Entry Express for tackling the issues that they could affect/control.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

HuntinDawg said:


> If I understand all of this correctly you are somewhat mistaken. It does not solve the problem of more demand than supply, you are correct there. But if I understand it correctly there will be more dogs able to run because of the wait list feature. The wait list feature will ensure that late scratches (just prior to closing) will not prevent people from getting their dogs entered before closing. So there will be an increase in the average number of dogs AT CLOSING for limited master tests. That means a few more dogs get to play. How many per test? I don't know but it will be more if there was enough demand that there were dogs on the waiting list.
> 
> This wasn't a problem EE created but I think these proposed changes are a huge step in the right direction. If people cannot appreciate that it levels the playing field while also giving the clubs the ability to give some preference to volunteers then nothing is going to satisfy those people.
> 
> Kudos to David Didier and Entry Express for tackling the issues that they could affect/control.


I guess I have been misunderstood by a couple folks. In no way did I intend to imply EE's changes were not for the good. Nor did I ever believe that EE was "the problem".

As you point out, yes ... maybe a couple more dogs will now be able to fill the spots left by the late scratches. And maybe a few handlers will think better of entering unless they are certain they plan to run. And maybe the entry process is a bit more fair.

I should not have said "we have not touched the real problem". The entry process should now be a bit better. But only a bit.

*If I am to believe the complaints I have been reading by hunt testers for the past year*, there have been HUGE numbers of folks shut out of tests. Tests of 120 dogs filling up in minutes and many, many more who who wanted to enter but the openings were not there. Unless the problem has been greatly exaggerated, the improvements David has made in the entry process are not going to reduce the demand nor increase the number of openings significantly. That solution is beyond the scope of EE and the fault has not been that of EE.

The fact remains ... and, again, *If I am to believe the complaints I have been reading by hunt testers for the past year *... there will still need to be real change in the number of tests openings offered OR the number of dogs wanting to enter OR BOTH. I think that is where the efforts now need to be directed.

JS


----------



## Golden6824 (Mar 28, 2010)

Coming from other AKC dog sports, I didn't know scratching after closing was even an option in hunt tests. In obedience and agility, the ONLY way you get any money back after after closing (minus an optional fee held back from club) is if you have a bitch in heat. It doesn't matter what other reason you have, dog injured, died even, no money back after closing. Certainly nothing back if you just decide you don't feel like going. You'd think AKC would have more similar rules among their different sports.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

A big kudos to EE for addessing what they could here. They can't make the AKC change its rules but have worked within what they have.

Two questions: (1) Will a person be able to know their position on the wait list? (2) Are the names on the waitlist available to the Secretary, or to anyone other than EE?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rig said:


> A big kudos to EE for addessing what they could here. They can't make the AKC change its rules but have worked within what they have.
> 
> Two questions: (1) Will a person be able to know their position on the wait list? (2) Are the names on the waitlist available to the Secretary, or to anyone other than EE?


1) Yes, the wait list will be visible from the viewed entries page just below those who are entered & they will be listed in the order of priority for entry. 2) Since the names are visible on the EE viewed entries page, anyone can see them. I'm not sure what value that would be to the club secretary. With an automated movement from the waitlist to the entered list, the events should close full. And under AKC rules, once entries close, no additional entries can be accepted for a lot of reasons.

Relative to post #105, it is not AKC rules that govern why some clubs give refunds after the close (except in the cases of bitch in heat or injury), it is a benevolent club secretary or club in general that is being gracious. Clubs do not have to give refunds for scratches after the close except in the circumstances noted - and many don't or if they do generally withhold expenses related to the entry (ducks come to mind).


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

You supply the land and help.


Final Flight Retrievers said:


> All of this "EXTRA $$ aka... fees" crap can be avoided by removing the "Limits".
> 
> just saying.
> 
> Regards !!!!


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

I guess I misunderstood. I thought I read where we could set up our CC informaiton in EE and then when we enter an event, it would already be populated.

Did I miss it? I emailed the EE email and asked the question and they said it could not be done. Maybe it's a change coming?

Love the changes thanks for improving opportunities.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Jeff Huntington said:


> I guess I misunderstood. I thought I read where we could set up our CC informaiton in EE and then when we enter an event, it would already be populated.
> 
> Did I miss it? I emailed the EE email and asked the question and they said it could not be done. Maybe it's a change coming?
> 
> Love the changes thanks for improving opportunities.


EE doesn't control whether your cc information can be populated. Some browsers do have features where you can have the browser save your cc data to auto-fill. EE will not ever save your cc data to autofill, it is a security risk to you & to EE that would impose a liability upon EE that we do not want now or in the future.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> EE doesn't control whether your cc information can be populated. Some browsers do have features where you can have the browser save your cc data to auto-fill. ....


Do you know which browsers will do this?


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> ... 2) Since the names are visible on the EE viewed entries page, anyone can see them. I'm not sure what value that would be to the club secretary. .... And under AKC rules, once entries close, no additional entries can be accepted for a lot of reasons.


Thanks for clarifying this. My question (2) should have started with the words "if not viewable by all, then ... " As for a reason the club might want to know, they might want to know if the waitlist had only a few names on it, not enough to fill the stake. The number of pre-draw scratches can be pretty large as we know from reports sometimes appearing forums. Since everyone can see the waitlist then question 2 was really null. 

I know that you and the EE team have put a huge amount of thought into this whole area. Would you care to share your opinion on whether the AKC should allow (at club option) additional entries after closing. There are some retriever venues that do allow this. You said "for a lot of reasons." What are the reasons and how many are valid in the present circumstances, which consist of [a] Master stakes that are capped at a max number of entries, * that always fill if allowed to do so, and [c] an online entry system is in use. Considering that this rule was adopted from the field trial world where stakes are competitive (dog vs. dog) and Master stakes are not a dog vs. dog competition, I am wondering whether this area deserves a fresh look by AKC. It is not unusual to have 5 or more post-draw scratches per flight; these are entries that could benefit someone if they could be used. Your view on whether the rule against accepting entries after closing still serves an independent good would be extremely valuable.*


----------



## mcvinak (Jan 15, 2014)

we shall see


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Rig said:


> Thanks for clarifying this. My question (2) should have started with the words "if not viewable by all, then ... " As for a reason the club might want to know, they might want to know if the waitlist had only a few names on it, not enough to fill the stake. The number of pre-draw scratches can be pretty large as we know from reports sometimes appearing forums. Since everyone can see the waitlist then question 2 was really null.
> 
> I know that you and the EE team have put a huge amount of thought into this whole area. Would you care to share your opinion on whether the AKC should allow (at club option) additional entries after closing. There are some retriever venues that do allow this. You said "for a lot of reasons." What are the reasons and how many are valid in the present circumstances, which consist of [a] Master stakes that are capped at a max number of entries, * that always fill if allowed to do so, and [c] an online entry system is in use. Considering that this rule was adopted from the field trial world where stakes are competitive (dog vs. dog) and Master stakes are not a dog vs. dog competition, I am wondering whether this area deserves a fresh look by AKC. It is not unusual to have 5 or more post-draw scratches per flight; these are entries that could benefit someone if they could be used. Your view on whether the rule against accepting entries after closing still serves an independent good would be extremely valuable.*


*

The fact that AKC does not allow entries after the close is a good reason to allow extra entries...over and above the limit. This would eliminate the need for an EE scratch fee, provide an opportunity for "waiting list" dogs after the close, and insure that the flights are full even if dogs scratch after the close.*


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

10,000 agree , I fully appreciate all the changes being made by EE and wish people would wait a bit after the changes are implemented to see how it works. AKC and RHTAC need to come up with the other changes



FOM said:


> I think everyone will just need to see how this all pans out, EE stepped up to the plate, took everyone's input, formulated a plan and took action...to me that's a positive thing. It's just like the initial change to allow limited master tests, it was a good thing for many, but the side effects were unknown and we ended up where we are now. Let's see how these EE changes work...at minimum it's a plan that was put into action vs. lip service.
> 
> Thanks David for taking the time to answer all the questions over and over again...
> 
> p.s. I think it's a no win situation for EE - damned if they do, damned if they don't....personally I like the fact that they did something


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Spag said:


> The fact that AKC does not allow entries after the close is a good reason to allow extra entries...over and above the limit. This would eliminate the need for an EE scratch fee, provide an opportunity for "waiting list" dogs after the close, and insure that the flights are full even if dogs scratch after the close.


I have read this several times and I apologize if I missed something but I just don't understand how it would do any of those things. First, the EE scratch fee only applies to scratches BEFORE closing so whatever happens after closing does not affect that fee, and after closing is the period we're talking about. Second, allowing entries above the limit does not ensure that flights are full if scratches exceed the number of overlimit entries that were allowed. Third, it does not provide spots for "waiting list" dogs if a "waiting list" is formed, those dogs are still on a waiting list. 

My question was limited to this: Whether prohibiting after-closing entries is still a good idea or not, under the current circumstances (which are quite different than when the rule was adopted, which was decades ago and in a field trial environment).


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

YEP, when a club plans for tests it is based off # of dogs entered, I scratch mine and expect them to eat the cost of my dog?? NOPE!! I consider it a donating to the club



Rainmaker said:


> I don't expect a club to return an entry fee after the close without a valid vet letter. I wouldn't ask and wouldn't be mad if they didn't. My choice to scratch, why should the club eat it, consider it a donation if nothing else.


----------



## our3labs (Dec 7, 2009)

David, I believe I read that club's will have a special code to get member's/worker's in early. Who determines that number, AKC/EE/Club? Is it the same number for every club or changes, depending on club needs?

Sexy is doing great !!!!


----------



## NCShooter (Dec 6, 2012)

I think I understand, please confirm. There will be a $25 scratch fee prior to the close period? Correct?
What if my dog qualified for the Master National and I am trying to free up a spot for someone else to get qualified?
In this instance, it seems like the fee is penalizing me for trying to do the right thing.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

NCShooter said:


> I think I understand, please confirm. There will be a $25 scratch fee prior to the close period? Correct? What if my dog qualified for the Master National and I am trying to free up a spot for someone else to get qualified?
> In this instance, it seems like the fee is penalizing me for trying to do the right thing.


You could wait until someone you know is the next person on the waitlist and ask them if they'd like to cover your fee.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

our3labs said:


> David, I believe I read that club's will have a special code to get member's/worker's in early. Who determines that number, AKC/EE/Club? Is it the same number for every club or changes, depending on club needs?
> 
> Sexy is doing great !!!!


Actually unique codes generated by the system once the event closes. The number of codes will depend upon the limit selected by the club, probably 10-15-20% of the limit selected. I'm guessing clubs won't be able to select that percentage. From our perspective, we are looking to the AKC to provide guidelines & I believe they will based upon RHTAC recommendations.

Glad Sexy is doing well. Does she have 2 or 3 MN passes? Miss her the most during duck season, she was an awesome dog on a duck hunt, small enough for my slip boat, for the blind, quiet and sat still while really watching the ducks so it made it easy on retrieves.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Lots of reason to not allow entries after the close. What comes to mind is difficulty tracking an un-registered dog's performance in that event plus the increased ability to record incorrect dog/handler information - this has been an intentional infraction by some during past paper entry days.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Rig said:


> I have read this several times and I apologize if I missed something but I just don't understand how it would do any of those things. First, the EE scratch fee only applies to scratches BEFORE closing so whatever happens after closing does not affect that fee, and after closing is the period we're talking about. Second, allowing entries above the limit does not ensure that flights are full if scratches exceed the number of overlimit entries that were allowed. Third, it does not provide spots for "waiting list" dogs if a "waiting list" is formed, those dogs are still on a waiting list.
> 
> My question was limited to this: Whether prohibiting after-closing entries is still a good idea or not, under the current circumstances (which are quite different than when the rule was adopted, which was decades ago and in a field trial environment).


I'm not sure why entries aren't permitted after the closing. They aren't but they should be. I can give you an example of an attempt to enter after the closing that would have filled several un-filled spots in a HT. It would have been good for the person trying to get in and helped the club out. (admittedly, this was before the current problems)

Not trying to impose anything on anybody...just making a suggestion for discussion purposes. IF there is a $25 fee for scratching before the closing, and no fee...or a lesser fee for scratching after the closing. There is a disincentive to scratch before the closing. If the scratches happen after the closing, there is no way to enter a waiting list dog so the spot goes unfilled. Since many of us agree that this is a supply/demand problem, there is no easing of that situation...and it could, quite possibly be exacerbated.

I don't see a downside. If I get my 6th pass at Bootheel this fall and I don't need the one at Central KY (which will already be closed) I can scratch and open up the spot for someone else instead of wasting it.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Spag said:


> I'm not sure why entries aren't permitted after the closing. They aren't but they should be. I can give you an example of an attempt to enter after the closing that would have filled several un-filled spots in a HT. It would have been good for the person trying to get in and helped the club out. ... If the scratches happen after the closing, there is no way to enter a waiting list dog so the spot goes unfilled. ... I don't see a downside. If I get my 6th pass at Bootheel this fall and I don't need the one at Central KY (which will already be closed) I can scratch and open up the spot for someone else instead of wasting it.


I agree there should be a way to bring all the willing buyers (waitlisted dogs) and willing sellers (clubs that have to write refund checks to the scratchers) together here. The economics on after-close scratches are hard on clubs because most, sometimes all, of those scratches are the type the club must give a full refund for. A club loses hundreds of dollars on them.

With all the smart minds looking at this area I think some solutions can be found and there will be a way to harvest these additional spots for the Master dogs who need them and not let them go to waste.

It will require thinking outside the box but I think it is worth working on.


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> EE doesn't control whether your cc information can be populated. Some browsers do have features where you can have the browser save your cc data to auto-fill. EE will not ever save your cc data to autofill, it is a security risk to you & to EE that would impose a liability upon EE that we do not want now or in the future.


Thanks David for the response and I fully understand the liability


----------



## our3labs (Dec 7, 2009)

She is great. Has 3 straight National passes, and in the Hall of Fame. Already qualified for this year in Cheraw. She looks great.. 

Did not get to hunt this year, but took her out to Arkansas last year. Our last day, we knocked a bunch of birds down, and a cripple sailed all the way over to the other side of the rice field. We picked up the short bird's, guide said we would get the cripple on the way out. I said no, Sexy can get it. Took about 3 whistles, 250+ yard's, into a pretty strong crosswind. Guide was pretty pleased. Her puppies are doing great too, I think Ray has 2 of t hem.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

O


Rig said:


> I agree there should be a way to bring all the willing buyers (waitlisted dogs) and willing sellers (clubs that have to write refund checks to the scratchers) together here. The economics on after-close scratches are hard on clubs because most, sometimes all, of those scratches are the type the club must give a full refund for. A club loses hundreds of dollars on them.
> 
> With all the smart minds looking at this area I think some solutions can be found and there will be a way to harvest these additional spots for the Master dogs who need them and not let them go to waste.
> 
> It will require thinking outside the box but I think it is worth working on.


That's where I get in trouble. I'd like to hear from some HT secretaries to see if notifying wait list handlers and writing checks would be worth insuring full tests.


----------



## our3labs (Dec 7, 2009)

Another question David. Say I have 5 dog's that I am trying to enter into a limited Master, and when I enter there is only enough room for 2 or 3. What happens to my other dog's? Basically I only want to get in, if I get ALL my dog's in, because if not, there could be a test a little further that I can get them ALL in.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spag said:


> O
> 
> That's where I get in trouble. I'd like to hear from some HT secretaries to see if notifying wait list handlers and writing checks would be worth insuring full tests.


Every situation is different, but from my perspective, no way is it worth it. Accepting entries after the close, essentially means no close. Someone pulls out the day of and you let someone else in, that is a lot more paper work than someone scratches, you note it in the catalog and send back the entry fee (or not if not required to). That is fairly manageable, especially considering the last minute work of entering a dog, getting all the relevant information such as AKC #, Registered name, etc., all correctly with all that is going on at the last minute.

I'd simply rather have a few dogs scratch after the close then deal with all the scratches and new entries with everything else that is going on. Now if 60 dogs scratched it would be different but in the clubs with which I am involved, the scratches are not a big number and it is not worth the considerable headaches.

As a practical matter, I don't see AKC ever allowing this. It is a headache for them as well and they only get $3.50 per dog.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Spag said:


> O
> 
> That's where I get in trouble. I'd like to hear from some HT secretaries to see if notifying wait list handlers and writing checks would be worth insuring full tests.


The club HAS TO write a refund check (and for a full refund) if the handler scratches for the required refund cases of: bitch in heat, injured, sick, or dead dog. The club can require a vet certification but if the handler supplies it, the club must write the check. 

You are talking about, hypothetically, an $80 refund times, say, 5 scratches per flight so for a 120-dog Master that's $800 in lost revenue. If the club can re-sell the spots it's going to be worth it to many clubs if the system can be modified in the ways needed for reselling the spots to take place. 

The notification of wait list handlers would be done through the EE software not by the secretary. It only would happen if the online system is modified to process entries after closing. It would only do that if (a) AKC rules are changed to allow entries after closing under these circumstances, and (b) the online service is willing to do it. The online service would NOT be issuing the refunds for the required refund cases of in heat, sick, injured or dead because they would not involve themselves in approving vet certification letters. That aspect would always be on the secretary's desk, which is where it is right now. No change there.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rig said:


> The club HAS TO write a refund check (and for a full refund) if the handler scratches for the required refund cases of: bitch in heat, injured, sick, or dead dog. The club can require a vet certification but if the handler supplies it, the club must write the check.
> 
> You are talking about, hypothetically, an $80 refund times, say, 5 scratches per flight so for a 120-dog Master that's $800 in lost revenue. If the club can re-sell the spots it's going to be worth it to many clubs if the system can be modified in the ways needed for reselling the spots to take place.
> 
> The notification of wait list handlers would be done through the EE software not by the secretary. It only would happen if the online system is modified to process entries after closing. It would only do that if (a) AKC rules are changed to allow entries after closing under these circumstances, and (b) the online service is willing to do it. The online service would NOT be issuing the refunds for the required refund cases of in heat, sick, injured or dead because they would not involve themselves in approving vet certification letters. That aspect would always be on the secretary's desk, which is where it is right now. No change there.


That was a practical reason I didn't mention above. EE needs the time between the close of entries and the event start to finalize the draw, correct records (dogs, handlers, owners), layout catalogs, marshal running order lists, do the event accounting and prepare the check to the club. Then print catalogs & ship all of the produced items to the club - all of which has to arrive several days prior to the event start. While all this is going on at EE, the club is coordinating ducks, workers, reservations of judges, grounds etc. Trust me, the clubs & EE would like more down time between event close & event start, and while you're thinking about replacing several late scratches, EE & the clubs are thinking about other things that are of more pressing requirement to make the event happen than a late scratch or two. And BTW before the advent the limited master, events averaged less than 2 scratches per event even including the bitch in heat & injuries. And remember, most clubs will cover the costs of a scratch in not giving or reducing the refund. Further, the std event opening only gives a person a short window to enter & there will be a 24/7 online scratch capability & waitlist feature, so scratches should return to the normal less than 2 per event - not worth the trouble for a club after close (and it's against AKC rules). Understand your heart is in the right spot but just not practical in this game under these rules.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> And BTW before the advent the limited master, events averaged less than 2 scratches per event even including the bitch in heat & injuries.


I appreciate the analysis about all the steps involved, good analysis, although most of those tasks are not event secretary tasks. But I have to take issue with what you said about 2-per-event. I have been in this game since 1984 and I don't think I've ever seen an event with only two scratches in the whole event, all causes. For SURE it is not an "average" number of scratches per event. Remember, after-close scratches count here also, because they all take revenue away from the club. 



Granddaddy said:


> And remember, most clubs will cover the costs of a scratch in not giving or reducing the refund.


This is the part of what you wrote that I don't understand. A club's policy isn't dependent on what the AKC requires in the way of the mandatory refund scratches so how is it "covering the costs"? Is there some way the club can not give a refund or reduce one that is related to the mandatory refund scratches? Otherwise it isn't an offset.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rig said:


> I appreciate the analysis about all the steps involved, good analysis, although most of those tasks are not event secretary tasks. But I have to take issue with what you said about 2-per-event. I have been in this game since 1984 and I don't think I've ever seen an event with only two scratches in the whole event, all causes. For SURE it is not an "average" number of scratches per event. Remember, after-close scratches count here also, because they all take revenue away from the club.
> 
> This is the part of what you wrote that I don't understand. A club's policy isn't dependent on what the AKC requires in the way of the mandatory refund scratches so how is it "covering the costs"? Is there some way the club can not give a refund or reduce one that is related to the mandatory refund scratches? Otherwise it isn't an offset.


Rig, sorry but the scratch stats are what EE has seen on average of all events & all stakes prior to the advent of the limited master as reported by clubs after events are completed. Clubs have to refund per rules but most scratches are not covered by the mandatory refund rule and as such may not even be reported as scratches (just an opinion). But let's not debate it, I've attempted to explain the EE view. There are AKC rules in place against entries after close. EE is not involved with rules or rule changes, as an advocate or otherwise. EE will attempt to comply with whatever the AKC rules require.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Rig said:


> The club HAS TO write a refund check (and for a full refund) if the handler scratches for the required refund cases of: bitch in heat, injured, sick, or dead dog. The club can require a vet certification but if the handler supplies it, the club must write the check.
> 
> You are talking about, hypothetically, an $80 refund times, say, 5 scratches per flight so for a 120-dog Master that's $800 in lost revenue. If the club can re-sell the spots it's going to be worth it to many clubs if the system can be modified in the ways needed for reselling the spots to take place.
> 
> The notification of wait list handlers would be done through the EE software not by the secretary. It only would happen if the online system is modified to process entries after closing. It would only do that if (a) AKC rules are changed to allow entries after closing under these circumstances, and (b) the online service is willing to do it. The online service would NOT be issuing the refunds for the required refund cases of in heat, sick, injured or dead because they would not involve themselves in approving vet certification letters. That aspect would always be on the secretary's desk, which is where it is right now. No change there.


Please understand...I'm not being argumentative. just trying to exchange/discuss ideas. My proposal is to allow additional dogs to enter...I don't know what the number should be...I'll pick 10. At the closing there would be 130 instead of 120. EE would collect the entry fee plus their $4.50 service charge for 130 dogs. They would do the drawing and print the catalog assuming that the first 120 are running. EE is done until the results are in. The local committee get the running order and a list of the 130 dogs. If there are no scratches, the local secretary scratches the 10 extra dogs and refunds the appropriate money. If there are scratches, the secretary contacts the next dog on the list and tell them their dog is in. This way, you aren't allowing entries after the close but you are filling the holes left by late scratches. Solves the problem of in-full test and allows holes to be filled rather than wasting them.


----------



## Richard Reese (Apr 26, 2006)

Spag said:


> Please understand...I'm not being argumentative. just trying to exchange/discuss ideas. My proposal is to allow additional dogs to enter...I don't know what the number should be...I'll pick 10. At the closing there would be 130 instead of 120. EE would collect the entry fee plus their $4.50 service charge for 130 dogs. They would do the drawing and print the catalog assuming that the first 120 are running. EE is done until the results are in. The local committee get the running order and a list of the 130 dogs. If there are no scratches, the local secretary scratches the 10 extra dogs and refunds the appropriate money. If there are scratches, the secretary contacts the next dog on the list and tell them their dog is in. This way, you aren't allowing entries after the close but you are filling the holes left by late scratches. Solves the problem of in-full test and allows holes to be filled rather than wasting them.


If you feel this strong about your idea you need to take it to the AKC rules committee. They are the ones that set the limits not EE. David and EE have nothing to do with the limits set per test or allowing entries after closing. The AKC does. You can debate this until the cows come home, however, David and EE must follow the rules set by the AKC. Even though your ideas have merit you are barking up the wrong tree by debating your idea on this thread. 

Additionally, I would suggest you be a hunt test secretary for several test than you will understand how your idea will cause more stress than solutions to the people working the paper work and managing the tests.


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Down East Labs 217 said:


> If you feel this strong about your idea you need to take it to the AKC rules committee. They are the ones that set the limits not EE. David and EE have nothing to do with the limits set per test or allowing entries after closing. The AKC does. You can debate this until the cows come home, however, David and EE must follow the rules set by the AKC. Even though your ideas have merit you are barking up the wrong tree by debating your idea on this thread.
> 
> Additionally, I would suggest you be a hunt test secretary for several test than you will understand how your idea will cause more stress than solutions to the people working the paper work and managing the tests.



^^^^ditto and thank you. I was hoping some people that have been HT secretary and chairmen were going to step up and acknowledge how much work ALREADY has to take place. Senseless to add a bunch more work for the possibility of 1-2 spots getting filled or not.

the big picture is being addressed by EE as best they can. Heck, everything they added or changed I read as suggestions on this forum. Now, they make those changes and a few new organizational wiz kids want them to make more. Can we please accept the changes that were made and move on? We haven't even had a chance to see how they work and we already want to change it. Give it some time people, then we can all get back to complaining about some minuscule detail that didn't work out perfect for us in one test (forget the thousands of times it has worked perfectly) and start a new debate about how everything in this world is unfair and that if everyone would just do what "I" suggest, everything would be perfect.

Thank you David and EE.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Rig said:


> I appreciate the analysis about all the steps involved, good analysis, although most of those tasks are not event secretary tasks. But I have to take issue with what you said about 2-per-event. I have been in this game since 1984 and I don't think I've ever seen an event with only two scratches in the whole event, all causes. For SURE it is not an "average" number of scratches per event. Remember, after-close scratches count here also, because they all take revenue away from the club.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part of what you wrote that I don't understand. *A club's policy isn't dependent on what the AKC requires in the way of the mandatory refund scratches* so how is it "covering the costs"? Is there some way the club can not give a refund or reduce one that is related to the mandatory refund scratches? Otherwise it isn't an offset.


This is completely wrong. On all scratches for cause, we MUST give a full refund if scratched after the draw. For any other we an decide our policy. In that way, we attempt to cover costs associated with a scratch after close NON bitch in heat, death or injury related. 

IMO, with the 30 day window on limited entry entries, scratches after the draw will be a very small problem. IMO, EE has made a very positive step in helping us manage the limited event issue.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Down East Labs 217 said:


> If you feel this strong about your idea you need to take it to the AKC rules committee. They are the ones that set the limits not EE. David and EE have nothing to do with the limits set per test or allowing entries after closing. The AKC does. You can debate this until the cows come home, however, David and EE must follow the rules set by the AKC. Even though your ideas have merit you are barking up the wrong tree by debating your idea on this thread.
> 
> Additionally, I would suggest you be a hunt test secretary for several test than you will understand how your idea will cause more stress than solutions to the people working the paper work and managing the tests.


I was wondering how long it would be before I go tthis kind of comment. If you would take the time to actually read my post, you would see that, in no way did I suggest that the limits be changed.

You would also see that I was NOT being critical of EE or anyone else and that I was interested in hearing from HT secretaries to get their comments. I would hope that the fine people whom I have met that are/have been hunt test secretaries would be willing to discuss this with me in a civil manner and expand on why this SUGGESTION will "cause more stress than solutions" rather that tell me that, if I want to know, go be a HT secretary.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Handler in Training;1300006 I was hoping some people that have been HT secretary and chairmen were going to step up and acknowledge how much work ALREADY has to take place. Senseless to add a bunch more work for the possibility of 1-2 spots getting filled or not.[/QUOTE said:


> Actually, that was one of my questions for HT secretaries...my idea would cause the HT secretary to have to notify the "waiting list" people that they are in and/or scratch those who don't get in and send them an approriate check. Is this additional work worth filling the flights? Apparently, your answer is no...I respect that. I would like to hear from others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spag said:


> Am I wrong in my assumption that rules won't have to be changed? Is the extra work the local people will have to do worth the trouble to insure a full test?


Unfortunately, your are wrong that your proposal doesn't require rule changes. Either the extra 10 dogs are entered after the close or before. If entered before the close, then the limits that triggers a required split must be changed. If entered after then that rule needs to be changed. One way or another a rule needs to be changed.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> Unfortunately, your are wrong that your proposal doesn't require rule changes. Either the extra 10 dogs are entered after the close or before. If entered before the close, then the limits that triggers a required split must be changed. If entered after then that rule needs to be changed. One way or another a rule needs to be changed.


Dogs are entered before the close....no rule change needed. If there are no scratches, those 10 dogs will be scratched by the club and the number of dogs running the test will not trigger a split...no rule change needed. In other words, the 10 extra dogs become the "waiting list" and, if not needed to fill holes, they are scratched.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> This is completely wrong. On all scratches for cause, we MUST give a full refund if scratched after the draw. For any other we an decide our policy. In that way, we attempt to cover costs associated with a scratch after close NON bitch in heat, death or injury related...


You misread what I was saying. My point was that because a club can set its own refund policy other than the "cause" scratches, and it cannot change the policy of full refunds for cause scratches, the former is not an offset for the latter because they are not logically related. Presumably the club will set the policy in the area that it does have control over to maximize revenue ANYWAY (if it wants to maximize its revenue). There isn't an offset because the club is going to have a policy regardless of what the AKC says about the "cause" scratches. It may feel it can ethically justify a no-refunds policy because the AKC forces it to refund for "cause" scratches. I guess you could look at it that way. If that's your point I agree with you.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spag said:


> Dogs are entered before the close....no rule change needed. If there are no scratches, those 10 dogs will be scratched by the club and the number of dogs running the test will not trigger a split...no rule change needed. In other words, the 10 extra dogs become the "waiting list" and, if not needed to fill holes, they are scratched.


If the dogs are entered before the close, you are over the limit and required to split. If they are not entered, then they are entered after the close. Feel free to run it by the AKC for your next HT and see if they approve, but as you described it, it is against the rules.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> ... the scratch stats are what EE has seen on average of all events & all stakes prior to the advent of the limited master as reported by clubs after events are completed. ...


You first said two per event. If you are saying two per stake I could see that.

I hope you realize I mean no disrespect to EE and its effort in making these new rules. I join all the voices saying "great job!" I know you have no control over AKC rules. I see no harm in exploring the feasibility of clubs (that choose the option--it should be club option) accepting after-close entries if the AKC were to change its rule. Every little bit helps when there is so much demand exceeding supply. And we all agree it's an AKC matter not an EE matter. AKC might look at this area in the light of current conditions, or it might not. 

I have technical questions about the code-holders' 24-hour set-aside process. First, which way will this work, timing-wise? Alt (a): The event opens to everyone on the 30th day in advance at the appointed time, but the number of slots that non code-holders have access to and can enter during the first 24 hours is the number in the flight less the number of slots set aside for code-holders. Alt (b): The event opens to code holders on the 30th day in advance at the appointed time, and non code-holders cannot access the site until 24 hours after that point in time. 

Second area: Say it's (a) above, and you are a code-holder. You try to enter with your code for a set-aside spot, but all the set-aside spots have been taken. What happens next? Does your entry automatically switch to take an available non set-aside spot? Or do you get an "entry denied" message and you need to start the process again to see if there are any non set-aside spots still left?

Third area: Are the number of set-aside spots (remaining as they count down) displayed on the site? Are entries that were made using codes for set-aside spots identified as such under View Entries?

Fourth area: Does EE monitor (or care) what a club does with its codes? What if it wants to offer a raffle prize consisting of the club's promise to give the winner a code for a "premium entry chance" to enter their next event? Just to throw out an example of a use that might not be "worker related." Okay with EE?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rig said:


> You first said two per event. If you are saying two per stake I could see that.
> 
> I hope you realize I mean no disrespect to EE and its effort in making these new rules. I join all the voices saying "great job!" I know you have no control over AKC rules. I see no harm in exploring the feasibility of clubs (that choose the option--it should be club option) accepting after-close entries if the AKC were to change its rule. Every little bit helps when there is so much demand exceeding supply. And we all agree it's an AKC matter not an EE matter. AKC might look at this area in the light of current conditions, or it might not.
> 
> ...


We're talking a master stake, so avg 2 per.

Regarding entry codes for workers, the codes will be provided to the club admin that set up the event on EE. The codes will equal 15% of the master as limited in total. There is only one event opening date & time. The event will open & during the first 24 hours, entry cannot be completed except with one of the codes provided. Codes are unique to an event & valid only for 24 hours beginning when the event is open for entry. Codes not used will not be valid for entry after the 24 hours period. EE will neither control the codes or monitor their use. They are provided to the club admin exclusively who setup the event by email to the IP address used to setup the event - even EE support will not know the codes. Suggest that these type of questions will be answered by using the new software when it is pushed live in the next few weeks after testing is completed. Much of the what ifs being discussed on this thread now are not germain to what EE is developing. They are best addressed to & by clubs, the MN Club &/or the AKC.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> If the dogs are entered before the close, you are over the limit and required to split. If they are not entered, then they are entered after the close. Feel free to run it by the AKC for your next HT and see if they approve, but as you described it, it is against the rules.



*AGAIN* not trying to be argumentative...just trying to become enlightened. The rules say "When entries exceed a total of sixty (60) dogs at the
Master level during a two (2) day event, the Master level
must be split to run in two or more divisions. When entries exceed a total of ninety (90) dogs at the Master level during
a three (3) day event, the Master level must be split
in two or more divisions."

My suggestion insures there won't be over the limit "during" the test because the extras will be scratched before. Is my interpretation correct? I'm not saying it is...just asking/discussing.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spag said:


> *AGAIN* not trying to be argumentative...just trying to become enlightened. The rules say "When entries exceed a total of sixty (60) dogs at the
> Master level during a two (2) day event, the Master level
> must be split to run in two or more divisions. When entries exceed a total of ninety (90) dogs at the Master level during
> a three (3) day event, the Master level must be split
> ...


I am not saying your ideas is bad, just that it will require a rule change. The split is based on entries, not what shows up on test days, so I still think your plan is a catch 22. I tried to get them to consider raising the limits say to 70/110 or something and was told it wasn't going to happen as they believe in the magic of the 60/90 numbers. They might consider your idea--best to propose it to the RHTAC, if you like it--but they like closing for a reason (even if they are not quite so particular about the days before as EE is because of all the work and shipping EE has to do).


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> The event will open & during the first 24 hours, entry cannot be completed except with one of the codes provided. Codes are unique to an event & valid only for 24 hours beginning when the event is open for entry. Codes not used will not be valid for entry after the 24 hours period.


Okay so Alt (b) was closer to what will happen. If you are not a code-holder there is no reason to sit by your computer until shortly before the the appointed time 24 hours after the event opened -- THAT is when you need to flex your fingers for the race to the server. 

If all the set-aside spots are filled before 24 hours has passed (seems likely), let me be sure I understand. Even in this case, the non code holders still need to wait until 24 hours is up before their entry would be accepted?


----------



## ducksndirt (Feb 20, 2015)

We all know it's about the money for the AKC. Simple solution, let the pros bring all their dogs to a pro's only master hunt test and just have 3 or 4 trucks show up to the event and have an amateur only event so all of us guy's and gals can bring our 1, 2, or 3 dogs and have a good ol time like we used to.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rig said:


> Okay so Alt (b) was closer to what will happen. If you are not a code-holder there is no reason to sit by your computer until shortly before the the appointed time 24 hours after the event opened -- THAT is when you need to flex your fingers for the race to the server.
> 
> If all the set-aside spots are filled before 24 hours has passed (seems likely), let me be sure I understand. Even in this case, the non code holders still need to wait until 24 hours is up before their entry would be accepted?


As indicated, you will need a code to enter during the first 24 hours after opening.


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> Here again is a summary of the EE changes that will soon be implemented primarily to accommodate the changing dynamic of the master stake since the advent of the "limited" master, the changed MN qualifications and the MNH title.
> 1) Events with *limited *stakes will have a standard opening, 30 days prior to an event start. Opening time will be standardized at 8PM CT.
> 2) Events with limited stakes will have a published, visible wait list capability with waitlisted dogs automatically receiving entry in the order waitlisted when a scratch prior to closing occurs.
> 3) Scratches will be handled online just as entry occurred, 24/7 prior to event close. This feature will be available to all events (FT & HT) and entries, not just those with limited master stakes.
> ...


Granddaddy, In reading over the proposed changes and the posts I'm still trying to understand everything discussed and was looking for additional clarification and commentary. Hopefully, you can address and thank you if you do.

Questions:
A. #2. - If you are having a wait list and they move up into entry slots vacated by scratches prior to closing, how , what and when are they charged to be on the wait list since we all pay full fees when entering ?
B. #2 - If you have a wait list at close, why not carry over the list and publish it with the premium thus allowing the secretary's the opportunity to fill all slots left open after close in order. Obviously, waiting list entries would be charged full test amounts when moving into a running order. How and when those charges apply is still an open question......Why not charge a set waiting list fee before or after close say $21.00. If AKC gets $ 3.50 per normal entry pay them 7.00 for waiting list or standby entrants . EE should recoup all of the costs incurred creating these changes say $ 7.00 and provide the same $ 7.00 money to the clubs. Any entries moved by the club secretary after close would be noted and charged waiting list costs plus full entry fee when results are submitted. Waiting list fees could be non refundable or determined by those more knowledgable with the process and costs but revenue provides incentive and compensation for the additional work. If you don't want to pay you don't have to play and can try a more open test registration where you can enter early and in time.
C. # 4- Would the early entry slots be an established set number based upon stated openings ? For discussion purposes say 15 for 60 dogs, 20 for 90 & 25 for 120 respectively ? If the number isn't firmly established, could that variable potentially present a number of open ended problems ?

It seems very apparent that AKC would have to be involved to some extent no matter what approach is taken so why not try an make it comprehensive in it's implementation and seek the required AKC changes. The proposed changes seem very well received but by reviewing the commentary and questions herein the details still remain to be worked out. Costs to make the proposed changes are there for all, EE, AKC & Clubs so it wouldn't be unreasonable to be compensated accordingly. I don't think anyone who really wanted into a test would be unwilling to pay for the opportunity.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Madluke said:


> Granddaddy, In reading over the proposed changes and the posts I'm still trying to understand everything discussed and was looking for additional clarification and commentary. Hopefully, you can address and thank you if you do.
> 
> Questions:
> A. #2. - If you are having a wait list and they move up into entry slots vacated by scratches prior to closing, how , what and when are they charged to be on the wait list since we all pay full fees when entering ?
> ...


A. An entry that moves from waitlist to entered is charged when entry is successful from cc information provided when waitlisted.
B. This is against AKC rules. AKC doesn't allow entries after close for a number of reasons, some of which I have noted in previous posts to this thread. This is an AKC question, not an EE question. Also just for your understanding, anytime EE collects fees, EE doesn't get all of that money in their account. The cc processor takes a transaction fee & a % of the charge before EE ever sees the money. Therefore EE can never just pass the fee on to the club in this or any scenario.
C. The number of worker slots is firm, based upon 15% (currently) of the limited stake total. Those slots are controlled exclusively by the club admin who setup the event for a 24 hours period beginning when the event opens for entries. Any codes not used during the 24 hour period become invalid & entries are open to the public.


----------



## Jim Stevenson (Mar 18, 2010)

Why the need for 6 master passes to qualify for Master National? Every year???


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> A. An entry that moves from waitlist to entered is charged when entry is successful from cc information provided when waitlisted.
> B. This is against AKC rules. AKC doesn't allow entries after close for a number of reasons, some of which I have noted in previous posts to this thread. This is an AKC question, not an EE question. Also just for your understanding, anytime EE collects fees, EE doesn't get all of that money in their account. The cc processor takes a transaction fee & a % of the charge before EE ever sees the money. Therefore EE can never just pass the fee on to the club in this or any scenario.
> C. The number of worker slots is firm, based upon 15% (currently) of the limited stake total. Those slots are controlled exclusively by the club admin who setup the event for a 24 hours period beginning when the event opens for entries. Any codes not used during the 24 hour period become invalid & entries are open to the public.


Thank you and understood. However, AKC does handle the money and returns funds to the clubs which is why I indicated AKC involvement is necessary and could address close and waiting list issues. The changes EE has made are appreciated but the apparent disconnect with AKC is rather puzzling when they are so integral to the overall scheme. Also, EE should recoup its costs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Madluke said:


> Thank you and understood. However, AKC does handle the money and returns funds to the clubs which is why I indicated AKC involvement is necessary and could address close and waiting list issues. The changes EE has made are appreciated but the apparent disconnect with AKC is rather puzzling when they are so integral to the overall scheme.


I do not believe there is a disconnect with the AKC. The AKC was responsive in making a rule change when clubs wanted limited stakes. They are now reviewing options to help with issues that have been identified since the advent of the MNH title & the MN qualification process changes. Nothing can happen over night, it takes time to think through the issues and possible remedies.


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> I do not believe there is a disconnect with the AKC. The AKC was responsive in making a rule change when clubs wanted limited stakes. They are now reviewing options to help with issues that have been identified since the advent of the MNH title & the MN qualification process changes. Nothing can happen over night, it takes time to think through the issues and possible remedies.


Is MN also reviewing options to help with the qualification process currently prompting these changes ? This may be obvious but many of us out here in the gallery don't have the inside view you have. Wouldn't hurt MN from a PR standpoint to perhaps weigh in a bit IMO. Thanks again for all your responses across the board. Understandably, the changes will take time and help everyone but as members it would be nice to hear from MN.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> I am not saying your ideas is bad, just that it will require a rule change. The split is based on entries, not what shows up on test days, so I still think your plan is a catch 22. I tried to get them to consider raising the limits say to 70/110 or something and was told it wasn't going to happen as they believe in the magic of the 60/90 numbers. They might consider your idea--best to propose it to the RHTAC, if you like it--but they like closing for a reason (even if they are not quite so particular about the days before as EE is because of all the work and shipping EE has to do).


And I'm not trying to say my idea is good...just threw it out there as an idea. I may not be reading/interpreting the rule...hopefully those who know the answer will correct me. the rule says when "When entries exceed a total of ... at the Master level *during* a... day event, the Master level must be split".

Here's my take on the rule...if the day before a test, there are 125 entries in a 120 limit test and the HT Secretary scratches 5 then there are only 120 dogs entered *"during"* the test and, therefore, the rule is met and no rule change is required.

I don't object to the 60/90 rules. That's a pretty good number to insure a good test and insure there is enough time to get it done in the allotted time. I also agree that, if my interpretation of the rule isn't correct and a rule change is necessary, my idea doesn't appeal to me nearly as much.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Thank you also for doing so in a civil manner...doesn't always happen that way!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Madluke said:


> Is MN also reviewing options to help with the qualification process currently prompting these changes ? This may be obvious but many of us out here in the gallery don't have the inside view you have. Wouldn't hurt MN from a PR standpoint to perhaps weigh in a bit IMO. Thanks again for all your responses across the board. Understandably, the changes will take time and help everyone but as members it would be nice to hear from MN.


Please understand that I have an understanding of what EE is doing & as such know there has been interface communications with the AKC. But I am not a spokesman for the AKC nor can I speak to how the AKC & the MN will consider or adjust their approach to the limited master stake, the MNH title or the MN qualification process. Those are all questions for the AKC & MN.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Madluke said:


> Questions:
> 
> B. #2 - If you have a wait list at close, why not carry over the list and publish it with the premium thus allowing the secretary's the opportunity to fill all slots left open after close in order.
> ....
> It seems very apparent that AKC would have to be involved to some extent no matter what approach is taken so why not try an make it comprehensive in it's implementation and seek the required AKC changes.


I think things will eventually head in that direction. One thing to resolve will be catalog logistics. You won't be able to see those additional entries in the printed catalog that all the contestants receive if EE is preparing, printing and shipping it to arrive before the event. They need time to do that. One solution would be to not have a printed catalog. Put it on line which gives greater flexibility to add names as wait list dogs move over. People wanting one can download it. I don't think a free printed catalog for everyone at the hunt test is an AKC rule is it? 

The marshal sheets would need to be printed at least a day ahead and the club could download and print the most current version. Any even later names could be written in. 

I think people could live with downloading their own catalog. It would be formatted to print off on 8-1/2 x. 11. Or you might prefer to just print a running order to take with you.

Clubs would save the printing and shipping costs on all those catalogs.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

Yes, it is an AKC rule to provide catalogs. In fact, they specifically spell out the size, etc


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Cedarswamp said:


> Yes, it is an AKC rule to provide catalogs. In fact, they specifically spell out the size, etc


They spell out the details, you are right, even down to size. But where do they say what you have to do with it, other than have it available for Judges to sign so you can report results to the AKC. Where does it say that you have to give the catalog to anyone other than the AKC plus some in club records, let alone hand printed ones to everyone on the grounds? That's my question.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Cedarswamp said:


> Yes, it is an AKC rule to provide catalogs. In fact, they specifically spell out the size, etc


Here's what the rulebook actually says: (Note the words "may" and "if prepared.")

Section 20. Catalogs. An Official Catalog may be provided for a licensed or member club Hunting Test. The Official Catalog, if prepared, must be printed, and shall conform to the official size of not less than 5 1⁄2" x 8 1⁄2", but not
to exceed 8 1⁄2" x 11".


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Speaking of catalogs, remember how terrible the retrieverentry.com catalogs where? They folded them the wrong way so they would not fit in a back pocket.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

VERY interesting the way Middle Tennessee has aproached this subject!


----------



## Webbs515 (Feb 6, 2010)

Spag said:


> VERY interesting the way Middle Tennessee has aproached this subject!


how exactly?


----------



## Goldenz (Sep 5, 2013)

Along the lines of the EE changes, here is an excerpt from the February AKC Board Minutes regarding recommended changes to hunt tests.

Retriever Hunting Tests – Changes to Entry Process and Allowing the Use of Shotgun
Simulators
The Board reviewed recommendation originating from the Retriever Hunt Test Advisory Committee
(RHTAC). The RHTAC recommends three changes to the Retriever Hunting Test entry process. Clubs
that limit the number of entries they will accept in their Master level test: (1) must advertise a date and
time when entries will start to be accepted, (2) must establish a “first in – first out” waiting list, and (3)
may choose to set aside 15% of the Master level test entries for event workers. A fourth
recommendation is to allow the use of shotgun simulators in Retriever Hunting Tests. This will be
discussed further at the March meeting.

Here is the link to the entire report:

http://images.akc.org/pdf/board_minutes/0215.pdf


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Webbs515 said:


> how exactly?


Unusually...not necessarily bad, but different than we normally see... scratch policy and having 2 3-day flights and 3 2-day flights.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Spag said:


> Unusually...not necessarily bad, but different than we normally see... scratch policy and having 2 3-day flights and 3 2-day flights.


How is that scratch policy unusual? I don't see anything much different about it than normal? You have to use EE to "scratch" before the close, the club can't do it. Clubs have to refund entry fees for dogs scratched with vet letter verification. Clubs have often charged a scratch fee after the close to cover costs. Clubs often don't refund for no shows or scratches after the event starts. These are typically spelled out in premiums. At least in my experience.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I never even considered that I might get a refund for a non medical scratch...I STILL don't ...I recently scratched two dogs a JH and a MH to spend time with my fiance for Valentines, why in God's little green earth would I want to penalize the club for my folly


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I never even considered that I might get a refund for a non medical scratch...I STILL don't ...I recently scratched two dogs a JH and a MH to spend time with my fiance for Valentines, why in God's little green earth would I want to penalize the club for my folly


So that's how women view time spent with their boyfriends...............folly, hmmmm.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

LOL David when you are 53 and just engaged ,you bet there is alot of foolishness going on ;-) I particularly like 5 b....

folly (ˈfɒlɪ)_n, pl *-lies1. the state or quality of being foolish; stupidity; rashness
2. a foolish action, mistake, idea, etc
3. (Architecture) a building in the form of a castle, temple, etc, built to satisfy a fancy or conceit, often of an eccentric kind
4. (Theatre) theatre (plural) an elaborately costumed revue
5.a. evil; wickedness
b. lewdness; wantonness

*_
_*[C13: from Old French folie madness, from fou mad; see fool[SUP]1[/SUP]]*_


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> How is that scratch policy unusual? I don't see anything much different about it than normal? You have to use EE to "scratch" before the close, the club can't do it. Clubs have to refund entry fees for dogs scratched with vet letter verification. Clubs have often charged a scratch fee after the close to cover costs. Clubs often don't refund for no shows or scratches after the event starts. These are typically spelled out in premiums. At least in my experience.


Sorry...I lost my head!


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Rainmaker said:


> Is the new pre-close scratch fee really that big of a deal? The HT aren't going to open any sooner than 30 days pre-test now with the new policy. If you don't know your schedule within 30 days, I guess you have to take the chance of entering and maybe eating a scratch fee, or not.
> 
> Kinda mind boggling, now that after all the complaining about MH limits, most of the problems are trying to be addressed and the griping continues. We are getting shortened, standardized opening date/time, we are getting reserved worker spots, we are getting an automated scratch ability and an automated wait list. All the things people, including myself, were asking to be fixed. Huh. Not everyone is going to get in that wants in, that's just the nature of the beast, but we're getting a bit more level playing field as far as getting entered in the first place.


Well Said, can't make everyone happy.


----------



## rsfavor (Jul 9, 2007)

When will the new wait list procedure begin. I entered the Mid South Master last night and was actually happy to be entry number 124. Knowing the limit was 120 for the limited test, I assumed I would be put on the wait list. This morning I have received another email from EE stating that "All entries exceeding the 120 limit have been removed and refunded."


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I did not get anything like that in my failed attempt at getting in the Saturday test at Metro last night


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Sorry about the over-entry issue. That has been a problem since EE's first attempt to accommodate the limited master back when. Found after the fact that any transactions in process were getting entered as limit was reached & our procedure has been to refund & notify (all we could do under the rules in place). We have corrected that issue in the new release which should be pushed live by mid-March, added the online scratch & wait list feature too so it should help.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Spag said:


> Unusually...not necessarily bad, but different than we normally see... scratch policy and having 2 3-day flights and 3 2-day flights.


One interesting thing they did was they did publish a specific opening date and time in their premium list instead of making everyone listen to the rumor mill or try to get the insider track for info from the secretary. 

And then they asked non club members to hold off entering for the first 30 minutes as a courtesy, to let the club members enter. Did people follow this voluntarily? Anybody know how it worked out for the club?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Rig said:


> One interesting thing they did was they did publish a specific opening date and time in their premium list instead of making everyone listen to the rumor mill or try to get the insider track for info from the secretary.
> 
> And then they asked non club members to hold off entering for the first 30 minutes as a courtesy, to let the club members enter. Did people follow this voluntarily? Anybody know how it worked out for the club?


Not at all uncommon--pretty much the standard for the last few months.

Based on other clubs that have done the same thing, asking others to hold off does not work. Not saying they are doing it on purpose, but most folks don't read the boilerplate in the premium. They see that it is open and enter. Publishing an opening time just makes it tougher for your own folks to get in unless the HTS enters them all when opening the HT>

Tallahassee seems to have set up its own online entry site for their HT. That is something different.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

DoubleHaul said:


> Not at all uncommon--pretty much the standard for the last few months.


This must be subject to regional differences because it is not the standard on the west coast. The methods in use have been the ones I mentioned. 



DoubleHaul said:


> Based on other clubs that have done the same thing, asking others to hold off does not work. Not saying they are doing it on purpose, but most folks don't read the boilerplate in the premium. They see that it is open and enter. Publishing an opening time just makes it tougher for your own folks to get in unless the HTS enters them all when opening the HT


Does the Secretary put this on their own credit card and collect from the club members. They need to put all the other dogs on their "My Dogs" page for this to work. That is a lot of dedication. Or you use everyone's login credentials and credit card information. Lots of work. Is this how it is being done at some clubs? 



DoubleHaul said:


> Tallahassee seems to have set up its own online entry site for their HT. That is something different.


We have had one club do that. The American Chesapeake Club had their own system for a while. Recently they went to EE. 

There is this statement in Tallahassee's premium list:

"THRC is going green. Catalogues must be ordered at this website, they are $10.00 each. Or you can bring the running order with you."

This is a meaningful cost savings for a club. I thought clubs would be looking at this option and as I said earlier in this thread I do think it is "legal" per AKC rules. Well here is a club that is doing it. 

It makes financial sense. Clubs sometimes throw a bunch of catalogs away at the end of the event especially at field trials where you have to buy more than there is a demand for, it seems. 

My hat is off to a club that holds a four-flight Master. Does it fill?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Rig said:


> One interesting thing they did was they did publish a specific opening date and time in their premium list instead of making everyone listen to the rumor mill or try to get the insider track for info from the secretary.
> 
> And then they asked non club members to hold off entering for the first 30 minutes as a courtesy, to let the club members enter. Did people follow this voluntarily? Anybody know how it worked out for the club?


They haven't opened yet but, if history is any indicator, those requests have fallen on deaf ears.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

After the really recent test closings it seems that the EE and AKC waiting list change will be great. Went from not being able to get in, to lots of slots available.


----------



## zoomngoldens (Nov 11, 2004)

For those suggesting a wait list for scratches that take place after closing, AKC has already established a procedure for this with agility trials. In agility trials, the clubs can choose to use a wait list, it is not mandatory. If you scratch after the close, and up to 3 days prior to the trial, you get a full refund as long as there are still dogs on the wait list. I just used this to my advantage because my BC was injured at last weekend's trial so I pulled him for next weekend. There was a wait list for the trial, so I get a full refund. If you search the agility rules for "wait list", you will find the applicable procedures for managing the list.

https://images.akc.org/pdf/rulebooks/REAGIL.pdf


----------



## Nick Toti (Feb 3, 2011)

Granddaddy said:


> Sorry about the over-entry issue. That has been a problem since EE's first attempt to accommodate the limited master back when. Found after the fact that any transactions in process were getting entered as limit was reached & our procedure has been to refund & notify (all we could do under the rules in place). We have corrected that issue in the new release which should be pushed live by mid-March, added the online scratch & wait list feature too so it should help.


How is progress looking for the new release?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Development & testing complete. Hopefully this week.....


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Development & testing complete. Hopefully this week.....


David and all of the EE employees who are working so hard to find some relief to the Limited Master Entry Issue:

THANK YOU !!!!!!


----------



## Nick Toti (Feb 3, 2011)

Granddaddy said:


> Development & testing complete. Hopefully this week.....



Sounds Great, Thanks so much for all of the help with this issue!


----------



## Eric Whitacre (Mar 10, 2011)

It looks like the new SW release has been installed.

Are the following all correct?

Entries Open: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:00:00 PM CST
Entries Close: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST

Entries Open: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:00:00 AM CST
Entries Close: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST

Entries Open: Monday, April 20, 2015 12:00:00 AM CST
Entries Close: Monday, May 04, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST


----------



## Centerfield Retrievers (Jan 28, 2007)

I had asked earlier if changes would affect events that had already been listed /opened? Apparently they will as several events that were already opened and have entries listed have now been changed to _Not Finalized _and frozen until NEW opening date. 
Scratches are now online, no more emailing or calling EE. Does this mean the NEW scratch fees are in place as well?


----------



## Eric Whitacre (Mar 10, 2011)

Anyone else seeing this error frequently...

Server Error in '/' Application.
Specified cast is not valid.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid.

Source Error:


Line 62: 
Line 63: int registeredUserID = (int)dr["ue_user_id"];
Line 64: bool isWaitlisted = (bool)dr["er_waitlist"];
Line 65: bool isDrawFinalized = (bool)dr["e_draw_finalized"];
Line 66: int currentUserID = ((classes.user)Session["user"]).userId;


Source File: c:\inetpub\vhosts\EEHOST1.secureserver.net\entryexpress\loggedIn\EventResultsDataGrid.ascx.cs Line: 64

Stack Trace:


[InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid.]
entryexpress.loggedIn.EventResultsDataGrid.ResultsDataGrid_ItemDataBound(Object sender, DataGridItemEventArgs e) in c:\inetpub\vhosts\EEHOST1.secureserver.net\entryexpress\loggedIn\EventResultsDataGrid.ascx.cs:64
System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataGrid.OnItemDataBound(DataGridItemEventArgs e) +9560218
System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataGrid.CreateItem(Int32 itemIndex, Int32 dataSourceIndex, ListItemType itemType, Boolean dataBind, Object dataItem, DataGridColumn[] columns, TableRowCollection rows, PagedDataSource pagedDataSource) +155
System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataGrid.CreateControlHierarchy(Boolean useDataSource) +806
System.Web.UI.WebControls.BaseDataList.OnDataBinding(EventArgs e) +63
System.Web.UI.WebControls.BaseDataList.DataBind() +54
entryexpress.loggedIn.viewEntries.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) in c:\inetpub\vhosts\EEHOST1.secureserver.net\entryexpress\loggedIn\viewEntries.aspx.cs:275
System.Web.Util.CalliEventHandlerDelegateProxy.Callback(Object sender, EventArgs e) +51
System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +92
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +54
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +772


----------



## Goldenz (Sep 5, 2013)

I see that error too. It looks like they're going through test by test and fixing it. I don't see a link for scratching a dog yet, but I imagine that is coming too as soon as these error messages are fixed.


Line 62: 
Line 63: int registeredUserID = (int)dr["ue_user_id"];
Line 64: bool isWaitlisted = (bool)dr["er_waitlist"];
Line 65: bool isDrawFinalized = (bool)dr["e_draw_finalized"];
Line 66: int currentUserID = ((classes.user)Session["user"]).userId;


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

The error messages above were seen if you were on the system during the implementation process which took about 2-3 hours to complete. You should not see them now. If you have other concerns - not editorial or philosophical comments, be specific, like the errors above & send those concerns to me at [email protected]. Remember be specific about a problem you are seeing related to the changes. I will not address anything else. All other issues should be addressed to [email protected]. Tara addresses most issues but always during normal business hours of 9-5, CT Monday - Friday.

*We have had several non-specific comments come in because a red scratch appeared by that person's dog(s). This does not mean your dog is scratched. It is instead the means by which you & only you can scratch that dog - no one else going to the site sees the red scratch by your dog's enty - only you. *

Do not expect a response by EE to comments posted here. Any errors you see should be sent directly to me at [email protected] or [email protected]

Thanks for using Entry Express.


----------



## Orion Labradors (Sep 12, 2010)

Long needed changes.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Ok I am so confused. The night Palmetto HT closed I logged on at 11:55PM, 5 minutes before closing. It said The flights had 58 entries and 6 Wait list and 59 with 3 wait list. I am not sure what that means. But now that it closed flight B is 2 short. So I guess in that 5 minutes 4 people withdrew. I really wanted to enter. But I am not going to pay $10 to get on a list with so little chance of getting in. I don't mind paying 10.00 extra but I don't want to just set a 10.00 bill on fire. This 10.00 is going to make money for entry express cause they will make extra money but is going to hurt the clubs because you are still going to have missing entries. Why not just have the wait listers pay 10.00 extra when they get it?


----------



## JBlack (Sep 17, 2003)

Good point Nate.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I don't think I'd enter (wait list) a full test 5 minutes before close with any dogs at all ahead of me on the wait list. I wouldn't expect anyone to be up at midnight trying to get a dog scratched that late in the game. What are the odds that 4 handlers (or one with 4 dogs) is gonna find out that late that they can't make a test and need to scratch? On the other hand, I'd probably enter (wait list) if it were day of the event opening and I could be in the 1st ten of the wait list. It'll take some time for a pattern of behavior to develope on this and get the bugs worked out on the process.


----------



## 1goodog (May 3, 2013)

*FYI--Self Scratch is getting debuged!*

*I got the below earlier today from EE. Like others, I was unable to use self-scratch. 

They have bug problems and have taken the feature down till they get the software right. *

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*We’ve had to remove the scratch feature while we work some bugs out. **

Entry Express
1-800-863-3647
www.entryexpress.net*


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

captainjack said:


> I don't think I'd enter (wait list) a full test 5 minutes before close with any dogs at all ahead of me on the wait list. I wouldn't expect anyone to be up at midnight trying to get a dog scratched that late in the game. What are the odds that 4 handlers (or one with 4 dogs) is gonna find out that late that they can't make a test and need to scratch? On the other hand, I'd probably enter (wait list) if it were day of the event opening and I could be in the 1st ten of the wait list. It'll take some time for a pattern of behavior to develop on this and get the bugs worked out on the process.


So what happened with the Palmetto test. I agree with you, it is unlikely that that many people scratch. The only issue is not because of the defect I am going to have a much more difficult time getting qualified. The best case I will have to travel 4.5 hours to a test rather then 1 hour (will cost me 200.00 in gas month and hotels since it is to far to drive back home). Worst case is I don't get my dog qualified at all. it is bad enough that I just had to eat 25.00 to 2 drop events that where back-ups because of a fee no one told me was coming. Now this. Plus they took 80.00 out of the Palmetto clubs wallet too. I guess it is nice to have a monopoly.


----------



## dogdaddy (Jul 19, 2009)

Way past time for MN to step to the plate and fix the problem of too many dogs having to requalify each year. If a dog earns a MN pass it should never have to qualify again and dogs with 15 or say 20 MH passes should auto qualify for life. Even our local pros are frustrated with how tough it can be to get into limited entry events here in the Midwest. I commend EE for the new changes which are helpful but MN needs to fix the problem that they have created. Our club in the past has required membership to work at our events but this has never applied to judges as they often come long distances and if short of help the requirement is waived. If MN does not fix this then perhaps clubs/EE/AKC should limit initial pro entries to a set number each(6-10?) and let them be the ones who must get on the waiting list. They are the ones making a very good living going to these events while the rest of us are paying our own way. Let them pay the extra fee to get more dogs in through the waiting list. Let them each intially have 10-15%(?) of the total entries allowed in a limited event with the rest of their dogs on the waiting list. Unfortunately our club also does not want to rub a pro the wrong way and lose his business. We had a prominent pro refuse to run his dogs at a double MH(2 clubs at the same event) on the first afternoon(2 day event) when we moved to the water but nothing was done as the club felt we needed him to help fill our future events. Scratching his dogs was considered but as in life "he with the gold rules". Because of this these changes need to be implemented by AKC and/or EE for all limited events so pros do not retaliate against local clubs. As it is now 2-4 pros can/will fill a limited event with almost no individuals getting to run their dogs. The new changes will allow pros to get all of their entries in more quickly which may actually hurt an individual's chances of getting in. I for one do not want to have to sit at my computer with all my info filled out waiting for entries to open so I can be one of the first to apply. I run some of my own dogs and I have a dog currently with a pro. One local pro in the fall before his veteran dogs are qualified will show up with 28+dogs. Spring/summer events are less a problem as the older MH dogs are usally qualified before then. At some point the issue will be resolved as the frustration continues to grow. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

dogdaddy said:


> ... our club also does not want to rub a pro the wrong way and lose his business. We had a prominent pro refuse to run his dogs at a double MH(2 clubs at the same event) on the first afternoon(2 day event) when we moved to the water but nothing was done as the club felt we needed him to help fill our future events. Scratching his dogs was considered but as in life "he with the gold rules". Because of this these changes need to be implemented by AKC and/or EE for all limited events so pros do not retaliate against local clubs.


So, if I understand your post, your club allowed a "pro" to dictate what tests would be run in spite of all rules and sense of sportsmanship to the contrary? And that's somehow a problem the MN, EE and AKC have to "fix?" A better fix would have been for the "pro" to forfeit his/her entry fees, be brought up on misconduct charges if the behavior warranted and be advised that any future entries from him/her would be refused. Problem fixed. You just opened up a bunch of slots for other folks and got rid of one bad apple - at least at your events. You say the pros are taking up too many slots but you break the rules and allow a "pro" to dictate your event because you're afraid of losing that business? Sorry, but that just makes no sense to me. 
There are rules in place to deal with bad behavior, illegitimate scratches and people gaming the system by entering dead dogs to hold slots. Adding more regulations won't fix the problem if clubs don't enforce what they have now.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

The silence from the OP is DEAFENING!!


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Looks like EE has the scratch issue resolved. And without the $25 charge, at least for clubs posted prior to the change. Had to scratch CRA. No problem.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Good Dogs said:


> Looks like EE has the scratch issue resolved. And without the $25 charge, at least for clubs posted prior to the change. Had to scratch CRA. No problem.


Yes, the issues involving the recent system changes should be resolved. The $25 entry removal fee applies to *entries *made AFTER the changes were implemented (applied as per the TOS) & has nothing to do with when the event was posted by the club. Entry transactions prior to the system changes (3/22) are handled under the terms of service (TOS) then in effect (as it was intended all along). As additional information, EE has one paid employee who prior to the limited master spent approximately one day per week processing scratches (& most of those FT related). With the advent of the limited master, changed MN qualification & the MNH title, manual scratches began to consume over 1/2 of that employee's work week. Also EE lost money with every scratch with most of the $4.50 fee going directly to the credit card processor (unless you think EE's one employee should work for free). EE's choices were to hire an additional employee and spread that cost over all who use EE's services or automate the scratch process and charge those who use the scratch service. The latter choice cost much less and only affects those who use the scratch service. It represented the most fair and lowest cost approach to handle scratches.

If you have problems which indicate that the EE service is not functioning correctly, you should send an email to me at [email protected] or [email protected] if you want it corrected.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

When will a HTS receive worker codes?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

FOM said:


> When will a HTS receive worker codes?


I received ours the day the event opened, in the morning. They were sent to the email address that I use to login to EE. (I listed a different email address in my hunt test secretary contact info, but they went to the other one.)

See http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...rve-the-15-Master-slots-for-the-workers-on-EE


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> Yes, the issues involving the recent system changes should be resolved. The $25 entry removal fee applies to *entries *made AFTER the changes were implemented (applied as per the TOS) & has nothing to do with when the event was posted by the club. Entry transactions prior to the system changes (3/22) are handled under the terms of service (TOS) then in effect (as it was intended all along). As additional information, EE has one paid employee who prior to the limited master spent approximately one day per week processing scratches (& most of those FT related). With the advent of the limited master, changed MN qualification & the MNH title, manual scratches began to consume over 1/2 of that employee's work week. Also EE lost money with every scratch with most of the $4.50 fee going directly to the credit card processor (unless you think EE's one employee should work for free). EE's choices were to hire an additional employee and spread that cost over all who use EE's services or automate the scratch process and charge those who use the scratch service. The latter choice cost much less and only affects those who use the scratch service. It represented the most fair and lowest cost approach to handle scratches.
> 
> If you have problems which indicate that the EE service is not functioning correctly, you should send an email to me at [email protected] or [email protected] if you want it corrected.


David,
Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Early entry codes will always be sent to the IP address that set up the event.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Early entry codes will always be sent to the IP address that set up the event.


IP address? Or email address?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> Early entry codes will always be sent to the IP address that set up the event.


I have no idea what that means. My IP comes from Comcast if I am home or from the U of Utah if I am at work. My email is on a gmail or an iCloud server, and the email gets forwarded to me wherever I am. I think.


----------



## Gunner_MN (Jun 21, 2009)

I received our "codes" yesterday afternoon for our event that is scheduled to open tomorrow evening. Pretty sure it is the e-mail address that was used to sign-on to EntryExpress when the event was generated. IP addresses can change for the ISPs or Email Servers.

On a side note, I got one code left to the highest bidder. ;-)

Pat


----------



## Paula Richard (Jun 18, 2004)

I have not been able to get on EE to search events since yesterday. When I click on "fetch events", I get an error page.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Paula Richard said:


> I have not been able to get on EE to search events since yesterday. When I click on "fetch events", I get an error page.


Check the format of your dates. I've received that before when I put in 15 rather than 2015.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

It works for me, Paula, I can see all trials and tests regardless of either clicking on the calendar or using the search feature.


----------



## Paula Richard (Jun 18, 2004)

Checked the date range and it was ok but I tried a new range and it still didn't work. I also tried from another computer without any luck. I am a hunt test secretary and can get on "my clubs" page to edit. Very strange.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Just tried and get error regardless of dates, advanced search, quick search, etc...

Edit: Adding a to date seams to be the answer. Leaving it blank I get an error, adding a to date I do not.

Edit 2: must have been a fluke.


----------



## Paula Richard (Jun 18, 2004)

captainjack said:


> Just tried and get error regardless of dates, advanced search, quick search, etc...
> 
> Edit: Adding a to date seams to be the answer. Leaving it blank I get an error, adding a to date I do not.
> 
> Edit 2: must have been a fluke.


just tried again and I chose AKC on that page and I was able to get in. Thanks all for your suggestions.


----------

