# Master Amateurs...



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Do clubs have the latitude to hold an Open All-Age Master and an Amateur Master instead of doing Master A and Master B?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

No..........


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

That might be an idea for the future however. Pass it on up the ladder.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Whats a open all age master?? You must be thinking a pro master and a am master??


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Probably an unpopular call. Obviously, I'm an amateur. For us, a significant number of "nearby" events are 500 miles plus distant. That is a huge amount of driving for a weekend. It makes getting the requisite number of finishes to qualify for national events kind of daunting as you look at the calendar ASSUMING you can even get entered in the available HT's. (I know... boo-hoo... everyone has that problem... yes, I get it.) But clubs have limited resources and I can see pressure could conceivably build for this kind of advantage for amateurs.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

A Master test is a Master test, there is no "open" or "amateur" master test....its all about who handles the dog...


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

FOM said:


> A Master test is a Master test, there is no "open" or "amateur" master test....its all about who handles the dog...


Well... yeah. Except that there is this thing called the Master Amateur Invitational that they're trying to get off the ground and that could change who runs what dog in which Master stake. 

By "Open All Age Master" I'm just pirating terminology from FT's where an Amateur can run a dog of any age in any stake but a pro can't run the Amateur All-Age stakes.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

1tulip said:


> Probably an unpopular call. Obviously, I'm an amateur. For us, a significant number of "nearby" events are 500 miles plus distant. That is a huge amount of driving for a weekend. It makes getting the requisite number of finishes to qualify for national events kind of daunting as you look at the calendar ASSUMING you can even get entered in the available HT's. (I know... boo-hoo... everyone has that problem... yes, I get it.) But clubs have limited resources and I can see pressure could conceivably build for this kind of advantage for amateurs.


Sorry to be kicking a dead horse, but this may be why some folks send their dog to a pro. It can make sense economically for someone to transport multiple dogs where the costs are shared.
Flame away.
MP


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

1tulip said:


> Well... yeah. Except that there is this thing called the Master Amateur Invitational that they're trying to get off the ground and that could change who runs what dog in which Master stake.
> 
> By "Open All Age Master" I'm just pirating terminology from FT's where an Amateur can run a dog of any age in any stake but a pro can't run the Amateur All-Age stakes.



I must be dense; I don't get the "who runs what dog in which master stake"...... 

There is only the Master stake. There may be an A,B,C or D DIVISION depending on how many dogs are entered, but there is nothing in the regulations limiting the type of handler (Pro or Amateur) within any division.-Paul


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I get what the OP's suggesting. Since there's now an Amateur Master National Club, why not designate a weekend Master flight to exclude Pro's (ie, an _Amateur _Master)? Makes sense to me, it should give amateurs a better opportunity to get their dog entered, especially when many tests fill up in seconds with mostly pro handlers. After closing, let the pro's wait list entries spill over into the Amateur if it's not full.

What shouldn't happen is for amateur tests' standards to be any different than any other Master. Unless the AKC rules are eventually modified for such.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I know. Been there, done that. I only just now retired. Not trying to mess things up for people like myself who have had to either use a pro, not have dogs, or had a dog that hung at the house and went hunting whenever the owner had time. My question was less opaque and not meant to lobby for one thing or another. Partly I was asking a straight up question. 

Does a club have the latitude to reserve a stake just for amateur handlers? It would appear not.

The corollary was perhaps implied in the question... would the same forces that have brought about the advent of the MARC produce "Open" (as in, open to pros and amateurs alike) and "Amateur" Master series run by individual members of MNRC/MARC member clubs in the future? The answer to that would require a crystal ball and will doubtless produce a lot of fodder for discussion in the future.


----------



## Purpledawg (Jul 16, 2006)

Great suggestion Mark and 1Tulip

QUOTE=Mark Littlejohn;1386085]I get what the OP's suggesting. Since there's now an Amateur Master National Club, why not designate a weekend Master flight to exclude Pro's (ie, an _Amateur _Master)? Makes sense to me, it should give amateurs a better opportunity to get their dog entered, especially when many tests fill up in seconds with mostly pro handlers. After closing, let the pro's wait list entries spill over into the Amateur if it's not full.

What shouldn't happen is for amateur tests' standards to be any different than any other Master. Unless the AKC rules are eventually modified for such.[/QUOTE]


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So you are advocating an additional stake be added? No thanks, I don't want Friday starts for Hunting Tests because that's the slippery slope, not to mention a club would more than likely be forced to have both an "open" and "amateur" stake as not to preclude anyone from entering...so for a club that needs a 60 dog limit how would you handle that? No thank you...

FOM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

A better idea would be to make the owner of record enter their dogs, not to exceed 3 dogs in a single transaction. There is something fundamentally wrong when a single person can snag 15-20% of the entries in a single transaction....that's really the problem.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

FOM said:


> So you are advocating an additional stake be added? No thanks, I don't want Friday starts for Hunting Tests because that's the slippery slope, not to mention a club would more than likely be forced to have both an "open" and "amateur" stake as not to preclude anyone from entering...so for a club that needs a 60 dog limit how would you handle that? No thank you...
> 
> FOM



Thanks Lainee! Couldn't have said it better.-Paul


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

FOM said:


> So you are advocating an additional stake be added? No thanks, I don't want Friday starts for Hunting Tests because that's the slippery slope, not to mention a club would more than likely be forced to have both an "open" and "amateur" stake as not to preclude anyone from entering...so for a club that needs a 60 dog limit how would you handle that? No thank you...
> 
> FOM



We are seeing quite a few Friday starts around here


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Marty Lee said:


> We are seeing quite a few Friday starts around here



That's good for Pros and the retired Amateurs. Not so good for the working stiffs.....-Paul


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

FOM said:


> So you are advocating an additional stake be added? No thanks, I don't want Friday starts for Hunting Tests because that's the slippery slope, not to mention a club would more than likely be forced to have both an "open" and "amateur" stake as not to preclude anyone from entering...so for a club that needs a 60 dog limit how would you handle that? No thank you...


No additional stake. If a club has a 120 or 180 dog limit, why not make one of those stakes for amateur handled entries only? The only difference would be in the entry process. Or your idea of limiting the number of entries allowed per handler, with their balance on the wait list, would work.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> No additional stake. If a club has a 120 or 180 dog limit, why not make one of those stakes for amateur handled entries only? The only difference would be in the entry process. Or your idea of limiting the number of entries allowed per handler, with their balance on the wait list, would work.


I'm not saying their balance has to be on the wait list, what I'm saying is when I click "submit" that transaction only has three master entries. Then the person can start over again trying to get an additional 3 master entries until the event is full - in the scheme of sending messages over the www this allows others who have one dog the same opportunity to get in if they are sitting at their computer when the event opens.

Think about it...I can provide an example if desired, but having to deal with software race conditions and math all day, it seems so simple to me.


----------



## hooked on quackers (Nov 7, 2010)

A master test is a master test. Everyone running to the same standards.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

GAWD This seem likes a case of the possible solutions bringing about way more pain and confusion than the problem. Instead of making new formats of the same old master test, why not just limit the number of dogs a single handler can sign up and run? Then a single handler wouldn't be holding a majority of the spots, and couldn't be filling a flight with one click in a limited test. Might get it back to at least a 15min filling time  .


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

hooked on quackers said:


> A master test is a master test. Everyone running to the same standards.



The prior post are clear it's about ams getting in the test, not about changing standards.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

If there were more degrees of freedom (so to speak), the amateurs needing to not necessarily compete for limited Pro-Am/"Open" Master slots, it might actually be good for both pros and amateurs. 

I agree that an Amateur should not be a "shamateur", running dogs off someone else's truck. Entries should probably be limited to some agreed upon number of dogs and no more.

And certainly, the variables are sort of mind-boggling but probably worth thinking about now as the MARC is just beginning to get it's show on the road.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

1tulip said:


> If there were more degrees of freedom (so to speak), the amateurs needing to not necessarily compete for limited Pro-Am/"Open" Master slots, it might actually be good for both pros and amateurs.
> 
> I agree that an Amateur should not be a "shamateur", running dogs off someone else's truck. Entries should probably be limited to some agreed upon number of dogs and no more.
> 
> And certainly, the variables are sort of mind-boggling but probably worth thinking about now as the MARC is just beginning to get it's show on the road.


How about an Owner-Handler Master? Pros could run the dogs they own and it eliminates the shamateurs.


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

Check out the P versus A at the Mid South Mississippi RC event 4/1/16, if you really want to understand where the game is going....at least here in the south....you yankees may or may not have the same issue.


----------



## LGH (Oct 20, 2013)

Lake Charles just filled up in less than 3 minutes. I couldn't get 1 dog in


----------



## joeyrhoades (Feb 23, 2015)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> GAWD This seem likes a case of the possible solutions bringing about way more pain and confusion than the problem. Instead of making new formats of the same old master test, why not just limit the number of dogs a single handler can sign up and run? Then a single handler wouldn't be holding a majority of the spots, and couldn't be filling a flight with one click in a limited test. Might get it back to at least a 15min filling time  .


This!!!

Limit the number of dogs that can be entered at one time and by one handler. It will take a little longer for the flights to fill up, and give the commoner like me a chance to actually enter a test (granted I am still a while from entering Master Tests).


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

LGH said:


> Lake Charles just filled up in less than 3 minutes. I couldn't get 1 dog in


Not only are the pros better trainers, they are more efficient on computers too.


----------



## LGH (Oct 20, 2013)

Maybe so. I was doing it from my phone


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Alaska does not have this problem - and never will because of the obvious reason we don't have the numbers - nor pros with huge numbers of dogs on their trucks

I think the obvious solution is to have a limit to the number of dogs an individual can enter at one time. This would probably force the actual owner of said dog to complete the entry, rather than the pro. Making it the owner's responsibility seems appropriate.


----------



## Oncini (Jan 31, 2013)

So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.


----------



## LGH (Oct 20, 2013)

So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.


Ask Mike P. Apparently he's the holy grail of dog trainers and a expert computer operator


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Why do you think EE would care? They are experiencing no problems from this policy. After all, the folks that don't get in can pay a $10 fee to get on a waiting list. Most still won't get entered, but again, that is not a problem for EE. 

This is the reality of the situation, folks. Heck, they even came up with a 'recording fee' if a club chooses to use their competition to manage their event. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to impose a limit on the number of entries one individual can make in a single transaction. It doesn't affect their bottom line. -Paul


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Folks i may be incorrect here however I don't believe EE gets to make these entry decisions. It's the Akc that won't allow limited entries by the handler so maybe to change any of this contact the Rhtarc 

Also I thought the wait list came about as ht entries ask for a wait list. People were entering dogs and scratching after a call to the buddy. It's hard to believe but some ht folks were being unethical as they had placeholders All this bs just paints the complete program in a bad way 
Dk


----------



## Oncini (Jan 31, 2013)

What is Rhtarc ??


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Oncini said:


> So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.


HRC has had a limit on the Number of dogs a handler can enter forever, EE also takes entries for HRC tests, thus if they are following HRC rules for sign up they must already have an option in order to limit dogs per handler. Hunt test secretary has this in place already as well. So theoretically the coding system is already in place, the thing that must be done would be petitioning the AKC to allow Limits on number of dogs a handler can run in a test. Now I assume you could write it such that you could have limits for a certain period of time allowing individuals to get in then say 48hrs. prior to close remove the limit and let the flight fill. If you wanted. Of course EE could just limit a maximum # of dog a handler can sign-up before refreshing is required, and you wouldn't need AKC involvement. But if we look at it from a business stand-point that isn't in EE best interest, as the more dogs a single person signs up at a time the more $4.50 they can accrue, it's in their interest to let people sign-up as many dog as they want, for a single credit card transaction, rather than having to do multiple card charges, each one requiring a CC fee, that EE has to pay.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

CC fees are a precentage not a flat rate per transaction...usually.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Brad B said:


> CC fees are a precentage not a flat rate per transaction...usually.


But the percentage goes down a little with a larger transaction....so it is better cost savings to allow a single, large transaction and a bunch of smaller ones....I could be wrong, but I recall this from some personal research I did a while back.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

FOM said:


> But the percentage goes down a little with a larger transaction....so it is better cost savings to allow a single, large transaction and a bunch of smaller ones....I could be wrong, but I recall this from some personal research I did a while back.


Lanee, it has more to do with total $$ volume that individual transactions. WalMart for example has a huge annual $$ volume and the cc fees are lower than EE could ever hope for and are charged the same fee if is a few dollars or a few hundred on a transaction.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Folks i may be incorrect here however I don't believe EE gets to make these entry decisions. It's the Akc that won't allow limited entries by the handler so maybe to change any of this contact the Rhtarc
> 
> Also I thought the wait list came about as ht entries ask for a wait list. People were entering dogs and scratching after a call to the buddy. It's hard to believe but some ht folks were being unethical as they had placeholders All this bs just paints the complete program in a bad way
> Dk



I could be wrong but I thought the discussion was how many dogs could be entered by an individual in one *TRANSACTION.* Individuals could enter as many dogs as they want using multiple transactions to do so.

I don't think the AKC has any jurisdiction over how many entries per transaction EE allows, unless the AKC is running EE. Therefore, RHTAC would have no input into the process, either. -Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

paul young said:


> I could be wrong but I thought the discussion was how many dogs could be entered by an individual in one *TRANSACTION.* Individuals could enter as many dogs as they want using multiple transactions to do so.
> 
> I don't think the AKC has any jurisdiction over how many entries per transaction EE allows, unless the AKC is running EE. Therefore, RHTAC would have no input into the process, either. -Paul


Paul. I agree in theory with you, BUT, I am guessing the AKC would view it as limiting entries to the event, which they have, on many occasions, said they would not approve. 

I would be in favor of X # of dogs per entry or owner only.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

#35 ask about the RHTAC which stands for retriever hunt test advisory committee. 
That committee is made up of people in the ht sport 
The limited entries and the 15% reserved spots each came from the RHTAC and they got the suggestions from people involved in the sport. You can't make this stuff up and have any better craziness. The AKC gave the ht sport exactly what was asked for. 
Dk


----------



## jdawber (Mar 9, 2012)

I think the owner should enter only one dog at a time. No limit, you can enter as many dogs as you own, one dog at a time. to me that would be the fairest way. John


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

If clubs can convince the AKC to allow them to hold an owner-handler master, you could fix this. Clubs might have to hold an Open Master as well, but that is not much different from having to have two flights due to high entries. Maybe not, though. Clubs should have the option of holding a fully owner- handler hunt test with passes counting toward titles, the Master National, and the Master Amateur National.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Another option is to record judges points associated with a Master pass so the dogs who really excelled in a test get some recognition that separates them from those who barely scraped by. Qualification for the MN and MAN could be points driven so dogs who consistently excel qualify faster than less talented or less trained dogs. Combined with the owner handler HT, you can control entries at weekend HT and at the national level.


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

Sabireley said:


> Another option is to record judges points associated with a Master pass so the dogs who really excelled in a test get some* recognition that separates them from those who barely scraped by.* Qualification for the MN and MAN could be points driven so dogs who consistently excel qualify faster than less talented or less trained dogs. Combined with the owner handler HT, you can control entries at weekend HT and at the national level.


A hunt test is against a standard, either they did it or they didn't.... no top bottom or scraped by!


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

there is always "the bubble dog" almost as important as the "beer dog"


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

The standard is minimally acceptable to pass. We have all been in the gallery and been wowed by an outstanding performance or two when most of the dogs struggled. The system has problems that prevent those who do all the work from participating. I am simply suggesting ways to reduce numbers by rewarding those who work hard and run their own dogs.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Sabireley said:


> The standard is minimally acceptable to pass. We have all been in the gallery and been wowed by an outstanding performance or two when most of the dogs struggled. The system has problems that prevent those who do all the work from participating. I am simply suggesting ways to reduce numbers by rewarding those who work hard and run their own dogs.


Yep! Then you can puff your chest out and say "I won the hunt test". That will be the day I quit judging Master tests....-Paul


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Whatever. All people do is complain about the system and nobody has a solution except the Master Amateur National folks, which still does not address the weekend test entry problem. The judges book has scores and maybe they can be used for something.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

There is so much BS in this particular discussion to make it laughable.
From pros getting an advantage because they enter all their dogs at one time insinuating that non pros can enter only one at a time (this is not true), to thinking that an am. only stake will alleviate entry pressure (suggesting a different standard for pros and non pros) to the statement that EE likes pros because of reduced credit card fees (another fallacy, the fee is the same as it is a percentage of the transaction whether a large or small amount) to awarding placements at a hunt test. Come on people. placements at a hunt test!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And now someone is blaming the Master National which has not even had the first event yet.
I am reading this for entertainment value only as there is nothing here of any logical substance.
MP


----------



## kevinj (Jun 16, 2014)

I am out of town with nothing better to do - so here is my opinion too

although I have never experienced this issue - my pro doesn't seem to have an issue getting my dog entered (I do understand how frustrating it must be to wait for so long for a test to be in your "local" area, only to not be fast enough to get your dog entered)

are the hunts tests not generating revenue for the host club ??? - if not entry fees need to be increased so that the host club benefits from the work and effort to put on a test

would the tests still have enough entries without "pros" that the clubs could still generate revenue from hosting it ??? (I randomly looked at 1 unlimited master test from last summer and 77% where "pro" entries)

you could do the same as HRC and limit to 12 - doubt it would help, as most of the "pros" running more than 12 have assistants capable of running dogs, then they would just both be there (and probably have 24 total, as it takes about 12 dogs per "pro" to divide travel expenses out far enough clients are willing to pay it)

You could limit to 1 dog per entry submission- giving everyone a better chance of getting 1 dog entered - but the "pros won't go due to expenses and test may not fill up - and the "amateur" with 2 dogs might only get 1 dog entered (which isn't good for them, with limited time to run tests and having to cover their expenses)

you could make the owners enter their own dogs - "pros" would not show up and test may not get filled

my take - open the registration for the first hour with only owner entries (owner name must = handler name)(so "pros" could enter their personal dogs in the first hour), then after that hour remove the requirement for owner name = handler name 

that would solve the issue as fairly as possible- in my opinion


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

kevinj said:


> I am out of town with nothing better to do - so here is my opinion too
> 
> although I have never experienced this issue - my pro doesn't seem to have an issue getting my dog entered (I do understand how frustrating it must be to wait for so long for a test to be in your "local" area, only to not be fast enough to get your dog entered)
> 
> ...


I really don't believe you do understand what people that train there own dogs, handle there own dogs, and try to enter there own dogs are dealing with when they can't get into a test. Try all three and then report back.


----------



## kevinj (Jun 16, 2014)

Todd Caswell said:


> I really don't believe you do understand what people that train there own dogs, handle there own dogs, and try to enter there own dogs are dealing with when they can't get into a test. Try all three and then report back.


You just assume I haven't!?!?


i have - entering tests at that time wasn't an issue (or at least I never experienced it - but that was prior to EE era )

do you not want to answer one of the questions I posed or debate my opinion ???

you only want to pick out one small part of what I posted in an attempt to be a smartass ??? That will solve the problems


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I didn't have to assume anything, you said in your post " my pro doesn't seem to have an issue getting my dog entered " So I took that as your Pro does it all for you and in your opinion if you had to enter your own dog and if enough of your Pro's dogs didn't get entered your Pro wouldn't go and the test would not fill up. My opinion is the clubs and the game would survive if everyone ( the owner) had to enter there own dog.


----------



## kevinj (Jun 16, 2014)

Todd Caswell said:


> I didn't have to assume anything, you said in your post " my pro doesn't seem to have an issue getting my dog entered " So I took that as your Pro does it all for you and in your opinion if you had to enter your own dog and if enough of your Pro's dogs didn't get entered your Pro wouldn't go and the test would not fill up. My opinion is the clubs and the game would survive if everyone ( the owner) had to enter there own dog.


you didn't have too - but you did 

if you have to say "I took that as" you are assuming 

and yes he does it all at this point - and he has never mentioned not being able to get in a test that he had planned on entering 

would the tests still fill up ??? (Notice the question mark)

i didn't find any test in the last few years that had less than 50% "pro" entries - and can't seem to ever remember any that where (although my experience with hunt tests only goes back to 1999), maybe it just my area. Are there tests where the majority of the entries are owner/handler ???

i respect your opinion- but for now with my current work schedule/load I will be thankful those are not the current rules


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My criteria for newcomer has always been the plastic Vari-kennel in the back of a pickup truck. Just don't see much if any of these guys anymore at a Master test. The amateurs left in the 3rd series of a Master test will have well trained dogs, they will train with a group and they have access to tech water. Maybe the MARC will encourage more to handle their own dogs. That is IMHO good for the game and might help replace some of the missing new blood.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Sabireley said:


> Whatever. All people do is complain about the system and nobody has a solution except the Master Amateur National folks, which still does not address the weekend test entry problem. The judges book has scores and maybe they can be used for something.



They are used for something. They define who passed the standard set forth in the Regulations.-Paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Whew! Thanks Paul. I was thinking all that scoring I did over the years meant nothing


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

fishduck said:


> My criteria for newcomer has always been the plastic Vari-kennel in the back of a pickup truck. Just don't see much if any of these guys anymore at a Master test. The amateurs left in the 3rd series of a Master test will have well trained dogs, they will train with a group and they have access to tech water. Maybe the MARC will encourage more to handle their own dogs. That is IMHO good for the game and might help replace some of the missing new blood.


I doubt the MARC will help. How many guys do you think with a vari-kennel in the back of the truck will be abler to take a week off and spend 1000 bucks to run the MARC? The MARC is going to provide additional opportunities for the guys already deeply into the sport. Which I think is a good thing but will not help the new guy issue. I am concerned too about these guys. I am in, nothing good or bad is going to get me out. But I have a friend who is getting into the sport. Got his SH and worked really hard to get his dog ready for Master this spring. Tried to get into 6 of the local HT here and got into 1 and wait listed on another one with a fair chance. The other 4 he would be so far back on the wait list that it was pointless. The guy is pretty frustrated with that and the fact that entry fees are now getting up to 100.00. He is younger guy just got married and bought a house. He might quit after this year. I think this type of guy could be lost.


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

Nate_C said:


> I doubt the MARC will help. How many guys do you think with a vari-kennel in the back of the truck will be abler to take a week off and spend 1000 bucks to run the MARC? The MARC is going to provide additional opportunities for the guys already deeply into the sport. Which I think is a good thing but will not help the new guy issue. I am concerned too about these guys. I am in, nothing good or bad is going to get me out. But I have a friend who is getting into the sport. Got his SH and worked really hard to get his dog ready for Master this spring. Tried to get into 6 of the local HT here and got into 1 and wait listed on another one with a fair chance. The other 4 he would be so far back on the wait list that it was pointless. The guy is pretty frustrated with that and the fact that entry fees are now getting up to 100.00. He is younger guy just got married and bought a house. He might quit after this year. I think this type of guy could be lost.


This is a story that needs to be reckoned with for the future of AKC Hunt Tests...Master National and Amateur National, do not and will not benefit the core program


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Nate_C said:


> .... He might quit after this year. I think this type of guy could be lost.


Tell him to give NAHRA or HRC a try.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Or train another year and go run some Q's much more rewarding and you can always get in


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> Or train another year and go run some Q's much more rewarding and you can always get in


Matter of opinion, a jam in a Qual is not as rewarding as a master title been there done that, hurray I passed the FT hunt test (cough) no points towards a title, no nothing just $85 and a green ribbon. Sorry just a different mentality, and everyone can preach all they want, forget masters step it up to FT. Different game, dominated by just as many or more Pros, plus the other "amateurs" that are able to train all day everyday (practically a religion). Besides I live in camo, only get mustard stains on white


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> I doubt the MARC will help. How many guys do you think with a vari-kennel in the back of the truck will be abler to take a week off and spend 1000 bucks to run the MARC? The MARC is going to provide additional opportunities for the guys already deeply into the sport. Which I think is a good thing but will not help the new guy issue. I am concerned too about these guys. I am in, nothing good or bad is going to get me out. But I have a friend who is getting into the sport. Got his SH and worked really hard to get his dog ready for Master this spring. Tried to get into 6 of the local HT here and got into 1 and wait listed on another one with a fair chance. The other 4 he would be so far back on the wait list that it was pointless. The guy is pretty frustrated with that and the fact that entry fees are now getting up to 100.00. He is younger guy just got married and bought a house. He might quit after this year. I think this type of guy could be lost.


My apologies, my previous post wasn't clear. I think the MARC may encourage some of the pros clients to handle their own dogs. This imho will be positive for the game. Folks active in the game tend to help out by judging and working tests.

Your buddy is exactly who is missing from the game imho. This group's hope now lies in a mentoring system. These successful newcomers are training with a group and have access to tech water. I seem to see less of these individuals than when I started. I brought up the plastic kennel because once these guys invest in a metal dog box, they are committed to the game.

Hope your buddy continues to play the game.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

As much as we might like it to be, change won't be immediate. It will take some time, growing pains and criticism.
There are still AKC clubs out there that do not embrace the technical mini FT mentality.


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> As much as we might like it to be, change won't be immediate. It will take some time, growing pains and criticism.
> There are still AKC clubs out there that do not embrace the technical mini FT mentality.


Is this mentality a good thing? I just wonder sometimes how high the Master Standard will climb? I am going to get another pup soon what will the test look like in 2-3 years?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> As much as we might like it to be, change won't be immediate. It will take some time, growing pains and criticism.
> There are still AKC clubs out there that do not embrace the technical mini FT mentality.


Who fosters that mentality? Clubs or judges?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Thomas D said:


> As much as we might like it to be, change won't be immediate. It will take some time, growing pains and criticism.
> There are still AKC clubs out there that do not embrace the technical mini FT mentality.





Marty Lee said:


> Is this mentality a good thing? I just wonder sometimes how high the Master Standard will climb? I am going to get another pup soon what will the test look like in 2-3 years?





fishduck said:


> Who fosters that mentality? Clubs or judges?


Judges - definitely.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

fishduck said:


> Who fosters that mentality? Clubs or judges?



Clubs......


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Thomas D said:


> Clubs......


In ways I agree, sort of like which came first the chicken or the egg.. LOL Still, the judges are the ones ultimately responsible for setting up the tests.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

But the clubs select the judges with like minds.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Depending on where you are, the available judge pool may be limited. In which case, sometimes the clubs have little to no choice.


----------



## blindfaith (Feb 5, 2006)

The self righteous nature and divisiveness of some of the comments on this thread are really disturbing. It is one of the reasons that I rarely use this site other than to buy or sell. One of my very best friends is a pro who agrees with me that the system is nearly broken.Any time three people can press a button one time each for a total of three pushes and take up 63 slots of a 90 dog master that makes it harder to enter for the hard working, successful amateur who may have 10 dogs, but probably not. So I go to work at a hunt test in which a number of my friends could not get entered to throw birds, plant blinds, etc for a few guys of whatever status. Just not what the program was designed to do and I was there at the start. It was designed as an alternative to field trials...so the "common guy" could train to a higher level, better his dog and therefore the breed and have some fun. Now I have to be at a computer at exactly the right time, hope that weather does not interfere or that I punch a key wrong and have to go back and the list goes on. One answer is obviously limiting the number of entries someone can have or limit the number of entries in a single keystroke. I may not be as smart as at least one of the posters here but I do have a couple of college degrees with emphasis on math and stats and if you put a limit on one end and none on the other someone gets hurt!...and I do know or think that a few ams could get together and include 30 or 40 dogs on one account and blast away just like when I used to enter an elderly mans dogs for him...but I don't like the idea. I used to tell my students to analyze by thinking of the extreme...What if one guy had 60 or 90 dogs on one account and got to it early? May not wipe everyone out but it would hurt and it is not a totally silly scenario when one guy enters 23 dogs in a keystroke. BTW..in the first Master I judges there were no pros and only one guy ran more than one dog. He had two!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

blindfaith said:


> It was designed as an alternative to field trials...so the "common guy" could train to a higher level, better his dog and therefore the breed and have some fun.


Truly......


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

blindfaith said:


> The self righteous nature and divisiveness of some of the comments on this thread are really disturbing.


Whenever a post starts like this, it is almost guaranteed to be self-righteous and divisive. Yours did not disappoint.

Regardless of what the HTs were designed to do, they are what they are today because they did not write the rules to keep them that way--or modify them after stealing them from NAHRA  and haven't seen fit to change things much. As you mentioned you can enter as many dogs as the next guy--doesn't take two college degrees to figure it out--but you, of course, are a good guy unlike those sleazy rats that enter multiple dogs.

There is a well-defined path to propose a rules change. Seems like going that route might be more productive than pining for the good old days and impugning the character of folks who are clearly within the rules.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

jdawber said:


> I think the owner should enter only one dog at a time. No limit, you can enter as many dogs as you own, one dog at a time. to me that would be the fairest way. John


Sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

jdawber said:


> I think the owner should enter only one dog at a time. No limit, you can enter as many dogs as you own, one dog at a time. to me that would be the fairest way. John


. 
Limiting owner or agent entries to one dog per transaction on EE would be simple to implement and most fair solution. A single transaction per dog would permit entry in multiple stakes (ie Senior/master) 
Implementation by EE would be simple code modification where once dog check box is selected clicking on different dog resets previous dogs check box to null so not possible to select multiple dogs. 
Very simple and imagine not against any rules as original paper entries, which electronic entry services are to mirror, we're one entry form per dog.


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

It is interesting that the discussion has not tended towards the 200 mi rule which is still in effect. With test filing up so fast, limiting hunt test to 200 mi radius from another club without explicit permission is an outdated view. You want to actually promote the sport, allow the demand to be met with more tests so that ams and pros that missed another test can get into an event and run their dog(s).


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Matter of opinion, a jam in a Qual is not as rewarding as a master title been there done that, hurray I passed the FT hunt test (cough) no points towards a title, no nothing just $85 and a green ribbon. Sorry just a different mentality, and everyone can preach all they want, forget masters step it up to FT. Different game, dominated by just as many or more Pros, plus the other "amateurs" that are able to train all day everyday (practically a religion). Besides I live in camo, only get mustard stains on white



Definatly a matter of opinion, last I checked there were no passes in a FT only placements and Jams, and a Jam can still be very rewarding. My comment was to encourage the people that are beating there head against the wall trying to get into a Master test to try a Q, you never know they might like it and feel better about a greenie than they ever did about a orange ribbon..


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> Definatly a matter of opinion, last I checked there were no passes in a FT only placements and Jams, and a Jam can still be very rewarding. My comment was to encourage the people that are beating there head against the wall trying to get into a Master test to try a Q, you never know they might *like it and feel better about a greenie than they ever did about a orange ribbon..[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> I know I do,


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Steve Shaver said:


> Todd Caswell said:
> 
> 
> > Definatly a matter of opinion, last I checked there were no passes in a FT only placements and Jams, and a Jam can still be very rewarding. My comment was to encourage the people that are beating there head against the wall trying to get into a Master test to try a Q, you never know they might *like it and feel better about a greenie than they ever did about a orange ribbon..[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

mjh345 said:


> Steve Shaver said:
> 
> 
> > _I'd be willing to bet the OVERWHELMING majority of people who have played both games would greatly value their green ribbons over their Orange ribbons_
> ...


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Steve Shaver said:
> 
> 
> > _I'd be willing to bet the OVERWHELMING majority of people who have played both games would greatly value their green ribbons over their Orange ribbons_
> ...


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I think it happened because the level of training required to get a Q JAM is pretty high, so the feeling of accomplishment when you get one is accordingly high. FT's at the AA level require a commitment in time and money that most retriever enthusiasts are not willing to make. The Q provides a venue to compete and achieve a suffix title. This means there are more older dogs running Q's than there used to be, but that is fine. While some pros run Q's, those dogs don't stay there long so there is less of a pro vs. am issue. I am all for the O/H Q as well.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm might start a pole on it, but Green ribbon=you complete all series judges find merit in your work. other than that Nothing. Orange ribbon=complete all series, judges find you to standard (might as well be judges find merit in your work). Other than that, a pass towards an official title and a qualification so you can go to a National event. Both cost $80-$85; for which with the green you get 2 marking series, 2 blinds, usually 1 flyer. For the orange you get 3 marking series and 3 blinds, around here usually 2 flyers. 

I think you can tell which side I lean toward which is a better investment, aside from the fact that I'm extremely allergic to Bleach.

Everyone else can place their own value on things, but if we consider that MH tests have so many people wanting to run them that they have to limit the tests and week after week they fill in 2 mins, whereas FT participation numbers, even with people unable to get into MH hunt test are pretty much unchanging. You might be surprised where a lot of people stand in their Green vs. ugly Orange; views.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm might start a pole on it, but Green ribbon=you complete all series judges find merit in your work. other than that Nothing. Orange ribbon=complete all series, judges find you to standard (might as well be judges find merit in your work). Other than that, a pass towards an official title and a qualification so you can go to a National event. Both cost $80-$85; for which with the green you get 2 marking series, 2 blinds, usually 1 flyer. For the orange you get 3 marking series and 3 blinds, around here usually 2 flyers.
> 
> I think you can tell which side I lean toward which is a better investment, aside from the fact that I'm prone to BBQ-mustard stains; and extremely allergic to Bleach.
> 
> Everyone else can place their own value on things, but if we consider that MH tests have so many people wanting to run them that they have to limit the tests and week after week they fill in 2 mins, whereas FT participation numbers are pretty much unchanging, year to year. You might be surprised where a lot of people stand in their Green vs. ugly Orange; views.


I think this has a lot to do with people knowing/thinking that there dog has no chance of getting a green. I don't thing it is a matter of a green versus a orange but a QAA versus MH. Most are trying for both. Of those I think they value the QAA or QA2 higher then the MH. It is definitely harder. 99.5% of QAA could get a MH if they wanted but only about 10-15% of MH dogs could get a QAA if they tried.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Nate_C said:


> I think this has a lot to do with people knowing/thinking that there dog has no chance of getting a green. I don't thing it is a matter of a green versus a orange but a QAA versus MH. Most are trying for both. Of those I think they value the QAA or QA2 higher then the MH. It is definitely harder. 99.5% of QAA could get a MH if they wanted but only about 10-15% of MH dogs could get a QAA if they tried.


It's hard to have this discussion without ruffling feathers. Having run both, putting MH titles on my first two dogs then switching to FT's and doing the equivalent of at least QA2 titles on my four field trial dogs, I would say MH test are a blast and probably more fun for the dogs, but Jamming the average Qual is probably a harder accomplishment than passing the average master test.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

SamLab1 said:


> mjh345 said:
> 
> 
> > I've played both games and disagree. Doing 1 land series, 1 land blind, 1 water blind & 1 water series = total of 8 birds picked up. Few diversions, walkups, poison birds, few marks, 2 blinds total, no breaking setup, no blinds between marks, etc.....
> ...


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Robinson #89 X 2. It also depends on the quality of amateurs, pros and sheer Qualifying size.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Sabireley said:


> The system has problems that prevent those who do all the work from participating. I am simply suggesting ways to reduce numbers by rewarding those who work hard and run their own dogs.


This is an absolute lie. 15% of the slots are allocated to workers, who are allowed to enter the test prior to opening. Most people don't or won't call a hunt test secretary, in advance of the opening, and volunteer to work in exchange for a code...


----------



## Jeff Brezee (Nov 21, 2012)

Labs said:


> This is an absolute lie. 15% of the slots are allocated to workers, who are allowed to enter the test prior to opening. Most people don't or won't call a hunt test secretary, in advance of the opening, and volunteer to work in exchange for a code...


SSSSSHHHHHH!!!

This worked for me 3X last year! The other two Master tests I ran didn't fill.


----------



## Jmoods (Jul 15, 2015)

Labs said:


> This is an absolute lie. 15% of the slots are allocated to workers, who are allowed to enter the test prior to opening. Most people don't or won't call a hunt test secretary, in advance of the opening, and volunteer to work in exchange for a code...


So, work my days with my HRC and my AKC Hunt Test/Field Trial club putting on pro dominated tests. Then to run my own dog I need to volunteer just so I can entered in a MH test with another club? Seems like a great deal for an amateur like myself.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Jmoods said:


> So, work my days with my HRC and my AKC Hunt Test/Field Trial club putting on pro dominated tests. Then to run my own dog I need to volunteer just so I can entered in a MH test with another club? Seems like a great deal for an amateur like myself.


The best seat in the house is in the flyer station. An astute handler will see the pitfalls of the test demonstrated. I prefer that location to the gallery.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Jmoods said:


> So, work my days with my HRC and my AKC Hunt Test/Field Trial club putting on pro dominated tests. Then to run my own dog I need to volunteer just so I can entered in a MH test with another club? Seems like a great deal for an amateur like myself.


So, taking birds at the line is too much work? Or planting a blind, or rebirding a station? You don't have to be the one in the bird stations all day....but, if you'd rather just sit in the gallery doing nothing in between runs, have at er...but don't continue to bitch about not getting entered. 

Last year, we had a lady drive up from TX to volunteer to be a blind planter, because she wanted to ensure she got entered in the test. 

Not that big of a deal regards -


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Labs said:


> This is an absolute lie. 15% of the slots are allocated to workers, who are allowed to enter the test prior to opening. Most people don't or won't call a hunt test secretary, in advance of the opening, and volunteer to work in exchange for a code...


Noticed on a 60dog test, which is closed now. That there appeared to be No advanced workers entries. At least none of those that I know who run & work the club test, were anywhere near the first to sign up. Entries for everyone opened Wed. 8pm. So I wonder if they even put out the advanced spots for the test. All I know is @ 7min 38 entries, closed this morning. Glad I had a friend that told me to get my buttocks online .


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Noticed on a 60dog test, which is closed now. That there appeared to be No advanced workers entries. At least none of those that I know who run & work the club test, were anywhere near the first to sign up. Entries for everyone opened Wed. 8pm. So I wonder if they even put out the advanced spots for the test. All I know is @ 7min 38 entries, closed this morning. Glad I had a friend that told me to get my buttocks online .


Every hunt test secretary gets worker codes from EE for the workers to enter the test before it opens to the public. There would have been 9 worker codes for a 60 dog entry...if the HTS didn't offer them up to the membership or the workers, that's on them, not EE.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Noticed on a 60dog test, which is closed now. That there appeared to be No advanced workers entries. At least none of those that I know who run & work the club test, were anywhere near the first to sign up. Entries for everyone opened Wed. 8pm. So I wonder if they even put out the advanced spots for the test. All I know is @ 7min 38 entries, closed this morning. Glad I had a friend that told me to get my buttocks online .


So you're saying a 60 dog master opened on wed nite at 8pm for everyone and closed this morning?


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Labs said:


> This is an absolute lie. 15% of the slots are allocated to workers, who are allowed to enter the test prior to opening. Most people don't or won't call a hunt test secretary, in advance of the opening, and volunteer to work in exchange for a code...


That's a little harsh. And 9 slots in a 60 dog test is hardly looking out for the people who do all the work year in and year out. A handful of people in each club do most of the work. They should not have to work at every test they enter just to get a spot to handle, particularly when there are people sitting in the gallery who rarely lift a finger.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

-" when there are people sitting in the gallery who rarely lift a finger."

This is the elephant in the room. It gets worse every year, and lately it's filtering down into the Senior and Junior levels as well. - Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

paul young said:


> -" when there are people sitting in the gallery who rarely lift a finger."
> 
> This is the elephant in the room. It gets worse every year, and lately it's filtering down into the Senior and Junior levels as well. - Paul


When I first started in NAHRA 25 years ago the culture was different. Trials were small and there wasn't a lot of help, so people weren't shy in asking newbies to help here and there. That broke us into the game and set the tone for an "everybody chip in" attitude. I was recruited to shoot the flyer at my very first hunt test.

Now numbers are higher, so clubs have more money to pay for help, many more owners are absent or if present, don't feel comfortable handling their own dog, or presuming to help at something a little new and intimidating. I haven't run a hunt test in a long time, but today's field trial clubs seem to be well organized. The most someone can offer is to bag birds for a rebird or help set up holding blinds and bird rack. Back to hunt test, if you still need gallery help, don't be shy in introducing yourself, welcoming that newbie and inviting them to help a bit. Most people don't hold back because they are lazy, they are just a little intimidated or completely clueless that you even need help.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> So you're saying a 60 dog master opened on wed nite at 8pm for everyone and closed this morning?


I was surprised it didn't close sooner, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Wed. opening usually just for worker codes? Then Thurs. it opens for everyone? Perhaps it's club based and the club can opt. out, just open it for everyone. Might of worked out better for the Amateur handlers as just over looking who signed up most that entered Wed. night were Amateurs with 1-2 dogs, only the last entries appear to be mostly Pros ran dogs, with a few holding wait-list spots. Seems like someone got on the Phone tree, spreading the word, took awhile to reach Pros trainers phones.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

What test was this?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

SoCal MH test, my mistake wrong verbiage, it's not closed just MH full, with wait-list. I put in my Info At 8:07pm Wednesday, Premium stated it opened Wednesday 23th 8:00pm. Thurs morning, when I checked it was full, with dogs on wait-list. I guess not as fast as some tests, we're seeing lately, but a little uncomfortable-tight for me, glad I had my phone when the txt came in saying they were already up to 34 dogs.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

We still have openings. A bit of a drive but no rush. 

https://www.entryexpress.net/LoggedIn/Premiums/ViewPremium.aspx?eid=7793


----------

