# MNRC: Exemption for MNHof dogs qualifying



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Just received this from the MNRC:



> Exemption of Hall of Fame Dogs from Annual Re-Qualifying
> 
> SECTION 3 Number of Contestants, Eligibility and Entry Fee
> 
> ...


Looks like they are proposing that the dogs that have passed three no longer have to qualify. It should ease up on the weekend HT demand as the serial plate chasers won't have to keep qualifing (although, of course they could keep running for fun)


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

My guess is that it will not make any significant difference in weekend tests.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

That one from MNHC gave me a chuckle.


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

How many dogs would this actually include


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

The other proposal is the 6 of 8 for qualification.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

yeah how many weekend dogs are MN HOF members? Not that many. Yes the rule makes sense and should be but it won't help any current problems.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Nothing the MNRC and/or the AKC is going to do is going to have that much impact. Releasing the folks who simply must go the the MNHT every year from qualifying will not do tons by itself, but it does something. From what I saw there is a high correlation between this group and the ones who were entering lots of HTs as placeholder and scratching later. Maybe will save some folks a waiting list fee, at least.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I think this is a good step! MNH dogs have proven themselves!

I HATE the idea of the 6/8 rule... It ruins the game for those who simply like running their dog! My husband runs our golden in tests even after he has qualified because he LIKES the game... Tide is already qualified for this year's MN.... The 6/8 rule would be tough as my husband- Who is a novice handler.... learns so much from every test he runs... even when they dont pass... and it has been handler error every time they didnt pass.... why penalize someone learning and having fun entering the local tests.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Moose Mtn your husband is not a novice handler just not a pro. He has been doing it for awhile and also runs field trials. If he wants to improve his handling skills he can always run amatuer or open. Run with the best compete with the best.


----------



## careljo (Sep 15, 2014)

For those of us who do not have MN aspirations (and are also ineligible to enter field trials), does anyone know how failing MH tests would affect us? I'm running my first dog in MH and learn a lot from each test that we've run. No, we haven't been very successful thus far but I'd hate to think that we couldn't enter any more tests after failing three in one MN qualification period when all I'm trying to do is work toward earning that elusive MH title.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

careljo said:


> For those of us who do not have MN aspirations (and are also ineligible to enter field trials), does anyone know how failing MH tests would affect us? I'm running my first dog in MH and learn a lot from each test that we've run. No, we haven't been very successful thus far but I'd hate to think that we couldn't enter any more tests after failing three in one MN qualification period when all I'm trying to do is work toward earning that elusive MH title.


The qualification of 6-8 is only if you want to qualify for the MN not just running for you title. You can run as many MH test you want, no limit. Once you have your MH title you can still run as many as you want.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

careljo said:


> For those of us who do not have MN aspirations (and are also ineligible to enter field trials), does anyone know how failing MH tests would affect us? I'm running my first dog in MH and learn a lot from each test that we've run. No, we haven't been very successful thus far but I'd hate to think that we couldn't enter any more tests after failing three in one MN qualification period when all I'm trying to do is work toward earning that elusive MH title.


It does not affect you either way. You need your five or six passes to get the MH title and you need six passes (out of however many it takes) during each period of MN qualification.

There is talk about returning to the 6 of 8 passes for the MN qualification but nothing has been sent out by the MNRC yet and it is a long, long way from passing, even if it does get sent out.


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

You must have Brian confused with someone else!

I love you Brian but.........



moscowitz said:


> Moose Mtn your husband is not a novice handler just not a pro. He has been doing it for awhile and also runs field trials. If he wants to improve his handling skills he can always run amatuer or open. Run with the best compete with the best.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

jacduck said:


> That one from MNHC gave me a chuckle.


Same here. That means what, ten dogs that don't have to qualify that would actually be tryin otherwise?


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> It does not affect you either way. You need your five or six passes to get the MH title and you need six passes (out of however many it takes) during each period of MN qualification.
> 
> There is talk about returning to the 6 of 8 passes for the MN qualification but nothing has been sent out by the MNRC yet and it is a long, long way from passing, even if it does get sent out.


Actually it was sent out today. A vote is due back in by June 5, 2015.


----------



## Centerfield Retrievers (Jan 28, 2007)

DoubleHaul said:


> It does not affect you either way. You need your five or six passes to get the MH title and you need six passes (out of however many it takes) during each period of MN qualification.
> 
> *There is talk about returning to the 6 of 8 passes for the MN qualification but nothing has been sent out by the MNRC yet and it is a long, long way from passing, even if it does get sent out*.


Ballots came out today for both:
*Revisions to Qualifying Standards*
SECTION 3. Number of Contestants, Eligibility and Entry Fee
(a) Contestants shall be limited to the following:
(2) All contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) out of eight (8)Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs_. _Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four out of six (6) Master tests by member clubs and have an MH title. Dogs entered in an event, but not scratched for approved medical reasons prior to the published starting time of the event, shall be scored as Failed if they do not complete the event. If a dog has run and/or after the published starting time of the event is injured or not able to complete a test due to medical reasons a vet certificate must be submitted to the Hunt Test Secretary addressing why the dog was unable to complete the test. This certificate must be received by the Hunt Test Secretary prior to the conclusion of the event to be considered as a non-completion and not a Fail. This circumstance may only be used ONCE per dog per qualifying year. All other scratches during a started event will be counted as a Fail. Once a dog fails three (events) within the qualifying time period that dog will not be eligible to enter that year’s Master National.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Actually it was sent out today. A vote is due back in by June 5, 2015.


I did not get that one. Interesting. Regardless, I am not betting the ranch on that one passing. Going back to 6 of 8 is going to be divisive and it is hard enough to get member clubs to pass even modest changes.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Same here. That means what, ten dogs that don't have to qualify that would actually be tryin otherwise?


A quick count....out of 323 qualifiers to date, 37 are already MNH.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Some questions:
After an amateur that has a dog on a pro truck, will they send the dog home and stop running tests after they get the 6 of 8 to qualify?
Most ams will travel to get the 6 of 8. After they get the 6 of 8 will they continue to enter tests?
If an am with dog on pro truck take dog home after they fail to get 6 of 8?

Like it or not rod and pro clients have a big impact on the HT game. How they feel about the proposals will probably decide the outcome.
Plus, all clubs don't send these proposals out to their members for vote. So the outcome might not be from all owners/handlers.
Will MNRC post how each club votes on these proposals?


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I think you have my hubby confused. He ran his first MH test last spring and never a FT


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Art Stoner said:


> You must have Brian confused with someone else!
> 
> I love you Brian but.........


laughing. Definitely right Art! But he runs a good winger


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Spag said:


> A quick count....out of 323 qualifiers to date, 37 are already MNH.


After all the hysteria the last few months, I would have thought there were at least twice that already qualified and another several hundred knocking on the door.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Moose Mtn said:


> I think this is a good step! MNH dogs have proven themselves!
> 
> I HATE the idea of the 6/8 rule... It ruins the game for those who simply like running their dog! My husband runs our golden in tests even after he has qualified because he LIKES the game... Tide is already qualified for this year's MN.... The 6/8 rule would be tough as my husband- Who is a novice handler.... learns so much from every test he runs... even when they dont pass... and it has been handler error every time they didnt pass.... why penalize someone learning and having fun entering the local tests.


I don't have your husband confused with anyone, but if the dog is already Qfied. and apparently capable, why not try and run a few Q's competing against other handlers and dogs, rather than competing with a book for another orange ribbon?? And I'm not trying to be a jerk but sincere, a green ribbon will feel so much better than any orange he will ever get..


----------



## Camo9244 (Jan 15, 2015)

https://masternational.wordpress.co...notice-to-mnrc-clubs-proposed-by-law-changes/


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> I don't have your husband confused with anyone, but if the dog is already Qfied. and apparently capable, why not try and run a few Q's competing against other handlers and dogs, rather than competing with a book for another orange ribbon?? And I'm not trying to be a jerk but sincere, a green ribbon will feel so much better than any orange he will ever get..


His golden is a 10yo dog with less than 100% hearing and sight. Jumping into FT marks isn't in the best interest of either team mate. He likes and is getting confidence in the MH game- why would he jump headfirst into the FT game when he is still developing his skills in the HT world.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Moose Mtn said:


> His golden is a 10yo dog with less than 100% hearing and sight. Jumping into FT marks isn't in the best interest of either team mate. He likes and is getting confidence in the MH game- why would he jump headfirst into the FT game when he is still developing his skills in the HT world.


Nothing more than competitive nature I guess, I did look up the dog on EE, yes he is 10 years old but still performing well. Difference of opinion is all...


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

These are steps in the right direction. The 6 out of 8 will improve the field a little. Hopefully it will cut the field down some. The MNH is a small step in the right direction too. I have a MNH and if it passes will likely run 1 or 2 just for tune up but that will be all. they do add up because with the recent explosion you will likely get 200 + dogs getting that title in Cheraw this year. That could free up 300 + entries in the 2015-16 season. I think they should take one more step and if you passed last year it should could for 3 passes not 2 like it does now. That would free up another 100-200 entries. Those changes together with the EE changes should really do it.


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Some questions:
> After an amateur that has a dog on a pro truck, will they send the dog home and stop running tests after they get the 6 of 8 to qualify?
> Most ams will travel to get the 6 of 8. After they get the 6 of 8 will they continue to enter tests?
> If an am with dog on pro truck take dog home after they fail to get 6 of 8?
> ...


My dog is with a Pro and we are already qualified for this years MN. We did so last fall. We have stopped running HT's this spring to concentrate on Q's and will go back to HT's this fall to qualify for next year. So the answer to the first question for me is that we would stop running HT's to run trials after qualifying for the MN. If the 6 of 8 rule passes we would likely do the same thing as we are doing now. I also have an older dog that I ran under the old 5 of 7 system. We failed to qualify a couple of times under that system and chased the 8 passes until that was out of the question. This time around if the 6 of 8 does pass and we don't qualify for some reason we'd go back to Q's and keep on running. Regardless of qualifying or not I wouldn't take my dog home to sit around the house. We would be running somewhere. I handle my dog the majority of the time unless for some reason I just can't make it to a test.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

I like the proposal if your dog already has a MNH title you do not need to qualify again. BUT really DO NOT LIKE the 6 out of 8. Most Pro run dogs will make that, but most ams dogs won't. Once a dog has passed 3 MN test to get their title they have proven themselves. It will take a year or 2 to slow the number of entries but it will do it.


----------



## T-bone (Jul 15, 2009)

I may be throwing myself under the bus by asking this question ...

Why do so many Ams think that they have a lesser chance running their own dog than a Pro does? Granted we may make more oopsies on the line but we all run the same test to get the pass.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Perry said:


> After all the hysteria the last few months, I would have thought there were at least twice that already qualified and another several hundred knocking on the door.


There were 436 dogs qualified as of last week, Mike. With the 3 busiest months to go my guess is that 1,000 dogs give or take will be qualified by the July 31st deadline. That should be enough, don't you think?

That would probably represent close to 8,000 master entries out of ???-Paul


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

T-bone said:


> I may be throwing myself under the bus by asking this question ...
> 
> Why do so many Ams think that they have a lesser chance running their own dog than a Pro does? Granted we may make more oopsies on the line but we all run the same test to get the pass.


It is not that Ams has a lesser chance of running, but a lessor chance of passing if you can only train one or 2 days a week and pros train every day. I would expect pro dogs to be better , more steady and not as excited since they see flyers and more birds then the normal am dog. Just as you said, Am will have more oopsies at the line, does not mean the dog is not qualified to run and pass and qualify for the MN. Just might take more than 6 out of 8 runs to do it.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

paul young said:


> There were 436 dogs qualified as of last week, Mike. With the 3 busiest months to go my guess is that 1,000 dogs give or take will be qualified by the July 31st deadline. That should be enough, don't you think?
> 
> That would probably represent close to 8,000 master entries out of ???-Paul


~21,686 in 2014 or a little over a third of the total entries. That percentage sounds a little high around here for folks wanting to go to the MN but probably not out of line. It would be about 13% of the total entries available in 2014.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

paul young said:


> There were 436 dogs qualified as of last week, Mike. With the 3 busiest months to go my guess is that 1,000 dogs give or take will be qualified by the July 31st deadline. That should be enough, don't you think?
> 
> That would probably represent close to 8,000 master entries out of ???-Paul


Asking becasue I honestly dont know:

IS the upcoming months the busiest? The folks down south are slowing down now, with many of their tests completed in the fall/winter/early spring. Up north it definitley the busy season.. but havent a good % of the tests already been completed if you look at them nationwide?


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

T-bone said:


> I may be throwing myself under the bus by asking this question ...
> 
> Why do so many Ams think that they have a lesser chance running their own dog than a Pro does? Granted we may make more oopsies on the line but we all run the same test to get the pass.


 Pros by their experience are much better at identifying factors that can cause dogs trouble. Should an unforeseen factor arise on the first dog they run, they can make necessary handling adjustments on the remaining truck load of dogs. Amateurs on the other hand get one shot to do it right or load up truck and go home. 

Hunt test are all about competing against the standard on a given day, not against other dogs. Do it six times and you get to play on the national stage. To semi quote Hillary, “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?” Disgusted with the mind set that three failures in a hunt test means a dog is somehow inferior. 

If a person wants to play the bragging rights game “of my dog is better than yours” because it passed 6 of 8 hunt test, I suggest they are playing in the wrong arena. I’m sure there is a field trial down the road.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

For #32 
Karen the MNRC entries as I recall for the last few years are about even pro/am. 
Which is different than weekend tests 

The reasons in my opinion people send their dog with a pro 
Has to do with the length of the event plus the travel each way. Then it becomes an economic decision, time off, travel expense and the ability to be away. 

For example last year to Calif was a 4 day drive each way then a 9 day event plus add a day before to get there so it justs adds up. 

Think about what it will take you to go to SC this year. 2 days over and back plus 9 days so you can see it becomes a time and dollar issue for many 
Dk


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Dave
See Jacks stats on MNRC website. I don't think it's even pro/am.


----------



## P J (Dec 10, 2009)

QUOTE=T-bone;1313664]I may be throwing myself under the bus by asking this question ...

Why do so many Ams think that they have a lesser chance running their own dog than a Pro does? Granted we may make more oopsies on the line but we all run the same test to get the pass.[/QUOTE]

As an amateur, actually novice handler and trainer. I made a lot of mistakes to cause failures with my dog, including once forgetting to make sure she was scratched when she cut her foot between the second and third series of a master test. I was thinking more of getting her to a vet than making sure the marshal scratched her.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Moose Mtn said:


> Asking becasue I honestly dont know:
> 
> IS the upcoming months the busiest? The folks down south are slowing down now, with many of their tests completed in the fall/winter/early spring. Up north it definitley the busy season.. but havent a good % of the tests already been completed if you look at them nationwide?



Entry Express shows 74 hunt tests yet to be run before the July 31 deadline. 

I know for a fact that there are at least 3 clubs in the Northeast who will put on tests that are not yet listed. There are probably some in the Midwest and Northwest that aren't listed yet, as well. -Paul


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

I am not sure why people have issue with 6 out of 8. That is 75%. If you are going to say that you have an elite master hunter dog, which is what you are saying by going after a Master national title you should be able to pass 75% of your weekend tests. They need to do something because the MN title is being watered down. This year there will likely be around 1000 entries. 3-400 ran in Alabama I know. That could end up with 250-300 new MNH out there and will likely be the same next year in St. Louis. they need to make it hard to get there. The only other option is drive down the pass rate to say 25-30%. The issue with that is that you need to start getting really picky and then inconsistency come in, ie the HRC Grand.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

300-400 MNH ran in AL? There were 712 total dogs entered.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Dave Kress said:


> For #32
> Karen the MNRC entries as I recall for the last few years are about even pro/am.
> Which is different than weekend tests
> 
> ...


Dave I was not talking about the MN. OP asked question about pros vs ams passing test. That is why I answered like I did. As someone else said, pros have several dogs and I only have 1. Chris Akins sat next to me at a hunt one time, and started to tell me what to watch for. He already ran several dogs and new I had 1 shot . He said he can afford to loss 1 or 2 dogs getting a feel of the test, but a 1 dog am can't. 
See you next week.
Karen


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

6 out of 8, will do what the 5 out of 7 did; major judge shopping by both those running the tests and those putting them on. Not that I disagree with the rule, a MH going to the MNH should be consistent. Most of the AMs. I'm familiar with are way more consistent with a single dog than pros with many . But those couple of years the 5 o 7 was in place did result in a lot of watered down MH tests, and judge shopping for those clubs and judges with historically high pass rates. Still the MNH has historically high pass rates right now, for many of the same reasons so perhaps it's a non-issue


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> I am not sure why people have issue with 6 out of 8. That is 75%. If you are going to say that you have an elite master hunter dog, which is what you are saying by going after a Master national title you should be able to pass 75% of your weekend tests.


Is that what a dog that passes the MNHT is? Is that the purpose of the MNHT? Is it supposed to be better? Harder? Or, is it just longer--essentially a double MH test? I am asking because it seems to me that there is an something of an identity issue with the MNHT.

Like it or not, folks (including the AKC) certainly view it as more than a regular but twice as long HT, hence the new titles. But, it is still run according to the same rules and standards of the same weekend tests everyone runs. It is a strange animal to me these days.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Judge shopping is going to happen regardless of the # of passes required.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

So if it was 6/8 and a dog that really had no intention of running the MN but just wanted to Q to say they did , or a dog that was planning on running it either way as soon as they fail 3 there most likely done running for the year, certainly would open up some spots for other dogs that either wanted a title or still working on qualifying. Correct??? Requiring a 75% pass rate would in my mind make the cream rise to the top. This is the " National" we are talking about and if you are going to Qualify for the "National" then it should mean something to get there..


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate, I don’t know who you are because your real name isn’t displayed. Thus, I can determine from what point of reference you are coming from as handler. I do take exception to some of your statements. 

Nate C - “They need to do something because the MN title is being watered down.” 

What do you base your opinion on? Have you been to the MN? I never once heard such a statement from either a veteran Pro or Amateur at the 2014 MN. 

I want to run difficult, challenging weekend test with excellent bird placement. 

I want to experience and see new setups and new terrain in different parts of the county, excluding Ohio and New York J

I want to run under “tough and demanding judges who raise the bar for us but play squarely within the standard. 

I want to be able to learn from failures and press onward, not be told to put my dog on the shelf and wait till next year.

I DO NOT want to judge shop for some namby-pamby watered down test so I can get 6 of 8 to qualify for the MN. 

Nate C – “3-400 ran in Alabama.” 

Hmm, a total of 23 doges showed up from Alabama. SC is closer granted but I doubt it will surpass the number from Texas. 

Nate C – “They need to make it hard to get there (MN).” 

Rational for the proposal is based strictly on making it easier to get into weekend tests. There is absolutely NO reference in the proposal to reducing the number of dogs because the MN is watered down or no longer an “elite” event. 

The proposal slams young & old dogs and new amateur handlers prone to making mistakes as being inconsistent and unworthy getting the opportunity to demonstrate their ability at the MN. Fact is many with a 75% weekend pass rate fail as well. 

Nate C - “The only other option is drive down the (MN) pass rate to say 25-30%.”

Just how is a MN judge going to do this task? And more importantly why? The requirements for every weekend master HT and the MN are the same. Aren’t the distances travelled and the stress upon the dogs enough? Add that on top of new landscape and setups and you have a tough road to hoe. 

The MN title is all about demonstrating consistent performance under a variety of setups across the nation over a period of time. How is a dog/handler team ever going to get the chance to become consistent when they are consistently excluded from the playing field? This proposal should be voted down!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Nate, I don’t know who you are because your real name isn’t displayed. Thus, I can determine from what point of reference you are coming from as handler. I do take exception to some of your statements.
> 
> Nate C - “They need to do something because the MN title is being watered down.”
> 
> ...


Would think the 6/8 rule would apply more than what is in place now... To get there..


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Tom #37 I did look back at the MNRC website and your right and me is wrong 
The pro/ am ratio gets worse each year. 
Dk


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Tom #37 I did look back at the MNRC website and your right and me is wrong
> The pro/ am ratio gets worse each year.
> Dk


The MN is a microcosm of the sport as a whole.

*"We have met the enemy, and he is us"*- Pogo


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Where are y'all seeing which dogs have already qualified for the upcoming MN?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Jim Danis said:


> Where are y'all seeing which dogs have already qualified for the upcoming MN?


http://www.theretrievernews.com/Nat...nal----Cheraw/2015-Master-National-Qualifiers


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> Would think the 6/8 rule would apply more than what is in place now... To get there..


Total lack of effort on your part to debate the merits of the "three strikes yer out" proposal. Surely you or someone from the Ohio /NY club's who are advocating this decisive plan can do a better job countering the issues I raised?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Somehow I knew once it went to 6 total, it would never be rolled back.
If something isn't done the MN will just grow and grow. As said earlier I don't think this proposal will pass, but will certainly prompt more discussion on the issue.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Total lack of effort on your part to debate the merits of the "three strikes yer out" proposal. Surely you or someone from the Ohio /NY club's who are advocating this decisive plan can do a better job countering the issues I raised?


I am not from one of the clubs proposing the change, but here goes:

The MNHT is nothing if not about consistent performance. It never had any different rules or standards than a weekend HT, so what differentiates a dog that runs and passes a MNHT? It has always only really been consistency. The MNHT has always been essentially a double HT. In the old days what really set it apart was that the dog was running two HTs essentially at once so it had to be consistent to pass. As it got bigger, it also has to sit around for a day or two perhaps in a HT environment and not even run. Must be pretty level headed.

For years the rule required 5 of 7. Then it was changed to 6. To pass 5 of 7 in a given year requires consistent performance. So does 6, of course, but 6 of 8 requires a dog to pass 75 % without really a hiccup. That is a dog that consistently performs at the MH level and it potentially differentiates it slightly from one that got hot one year. To me, the major thing a MNHT pass told you about a dog was that it was consistent. Not better than any other dog in any other way, but that it was consistent. Making the requirement 6 of 8 is surely meant to reduce the numbers on its own but also, I suspect, to reward the more consistent dog-handler teams. That is not a bad way to do it, IMO.

Where I think this particular proposal falls down is the draconian "scratch equals fail" policy attached. A scratch is a scratch and a fail is a fail. They are not the same thing. While I have (in the old days) witnessed a handler and judge arguing whether the handler scratched the dog before the judge dropped it or not, I think that the way this is structured does not allow for emergencies that come up that could cause a legitimate scratching of a dog. These things are not such a big deal for the person with a dog on a pro's truck (although there are reasons a pro might have to scratch all his or her dogs) as much as the person HTs were supposed to be for in the first place.

Frankly, I don't think this proposal has much chance of passing. Lots of folks are, like me, agnostic about a x of (x+n) qualification requirement, but the scratch equals fail part seems to be universally hated, making it D.O.A, IMO.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> Some questions:
> After an amateur that has a dog on a pro truck, will they send the dog home and stop running tests after they get the 6 of 8 to qualify?
> Most ams will travel to get the 6 of 8. After they get the 6 of 8 will they continue to enter tests?
> If an am with dog on pro truck take dog home after they fail to get 6 of 8?
> ...


This is terrible! Owners taking their dogs home and training their own dogs? I cannot imagine this craziness! Next you'll tell me the hunt test is for the working man.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

#55 
In your second paragraph which speaks of years of 5 of 7 to qualify that is not correct. 
The standard to qualify for the MNRC started at 6 passes with the bonus of 2 passes being applied if you qualified at the previous MN event. Around 07 and 08 ( May be off a year) the 5 of 7 rule came in. 
Judge shopping became rampant, dogs scratching between series was laughable and finally the MNRC just did away with it 

I'm not sure how the 6 of 8 will turn out. 
Dk


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

So why can't dogs that have a plate just automatically be qualified for life? That would take a nice chunk out of those that have to qualify every year. My biggest issue is the scratch policy. IMO this proposal is very poorly written and needs to go back to the drawing board.. With a few tweaks something could come out of it.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Thomas D said:


> Somehow I knew once it went to 6 total, it would never be rolled back.
> If something isn't done the MN will just grow and grow. As said earlier I don't think this proposal will pass, but will certainly prompt more discussion on the issue.


trying to grasp why the growth of our sport would EVER be considered a bad thing?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

If the MN can't handle the capacity........


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> 6 out of 8, will do what the 5 out of 7 did; major judge shopping by both those running the tests and those putting them on. )


Yup that! IMHO there are good dogs out there that stumble a bit early and finish like a tornado so in addition to 6-8 then maybe 10 passes for the year? Like all thoughts I have read, this will not solve the problem. Just like NCAA, regional qualifiers would help in spreading the pain.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Kress said:


> #55
> In your second paragraph which speaks of years of 5 of 7 to qualify that is not correct.
> The standard to qualify for the MNRC started at 6 passes with the bonus of 2 passes being applied if you qualified at the previous MN event. Around 07 and 08 ( May be off a year) the 5 of 7 rule came in.
> Judge shopping became rampant, dogs scratching between series was laughable and finally the MNRC just did away with it
> ...


You are right, of course, Dave. Did not mean to imply that 5 of 7 was always the way but that it was that way for several years before it was changed to 6. Doesn't change my point--though I admit some silly behavior used to go on and alluded to it. Some of it still goes on but I think the judge shopping is significantly reduced. Frankly, my biggest worry about any x of (x+n) system is that some of my favorite judges will no longer be asked to judge as folks don't want to risk their challenging and interesting tests and clubs respond accordingly.

Don't know how much but clearly there are more dogs running now than when such a policy was in effect, so it stands to reason it would be worse.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

jacduck said:


> Just like NCAA, regional qualifiers would help in spreading the pain.


And a play in HT in Dayton every year? 

I know why this is unlikely to happen but I personally like the regional qualifiers idea. I have zero interest in the whole MNHT dealbut would enjoy running a regional qualifier, I think. Sort of MNHT Lite or MNHT circa 1997


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Just me thinking and I know that has dangers however on this 
Proposed 6 of 8 thing how does 6 of 8 work for a dog that qualifies at the MN 
Does the 2 earned bonus quals go away? Or is it now 4 of 8 or is it 4 of 6 

Does anyone really know 
Dk


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Dave
Wasn't it 5 of 7 or 8 total? So some that didn't get the 5 of 7 had to continue to get 8 to qualify.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Another solution would be to up the standards of passing the MNH, back when it was on 20-30% pass, and No AKC title fair less people would go, a year. A 50+% pass and official title people go, however the standard is exactly the same, and with the large Number of participants at the MNH, dogs wait days inbtw series, series must also become quick and less technical to finish; in the week allotted for the test (sometimes they do not even make 6 series (I recall a single and a blind being called a MNH full series). I question that a dog which passes both tests in a basic double Master stake put on by any club, in 4 days; might be doing more consistent work; in 6 fully developed series; than those dogs going to run the MNH where they are compared the to exact same standard, and might not even see the same # of series as a double master. Yet the MNH gets a fancy plate and a fancy title, perhaps a fun event to go to but not sure what the MNH event accomplishes, in terms of better work and ranking dogs. Where-as no-one would ever question that there is a very distinct difference btw HRCH dogs, even a HRCH-500,1000 etc. those highly consistent in passing HRC finished tests and those dogs that pass the HRC Grand (whether people agree with it or not the standards are highly different), and a GRHRCH title is distinct.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

#57 Tom - yes you are correct it was 7
5 of 7 and a second option was 8 total 

As I recall there were several dogs that needed in excess of 20 attempts to get 8 
Dk


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I think passing the MN makes 2 of 2.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Questions for advocates of the “3 Strikes You’re Out” proposal. 

Question #1) 
It doesn’t matter if you are an Amateur, Client, or Pro. Everyone wants to be able to learn from failures and try again, not be told to put the dog on the shelf till next year. How is the handler/dog team going to continue the process of learning when they are intentionally discouraged from further participation?

Question #2) 
Field trial dogs are not banned from participating in the FT National (FC/AFC) for failing to place three times during the year. Why should a 3 Strike rule apply to hunt test dogs and not field trial dogs? 

Question #3) 
Proposal has the propensity to encourage watered down test because no one wants to see handler/dog team eliminated for the balance of the year. Why should the judge have to worry about anything other than setting up a challenging test with good bird placement? Think this will encourage more to join the judging pool?

Question #4)
This proposal is divisive and inflames the amateurs vs. pro debate. I don’t recall this proposal being introduced to the audience of amateurs, clients, or pros all gathered together to work and put on the 2014 MN event. It would have gone over like a turd in the punch bowel. Solutions to the MN growth should bring us all together for the good of the dogs. Why should it be otherwise?


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Great Questions Dan Epperson


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> I think passing the MN makes 2 of 2.


How many scratches would it count if you scratched at the MNHT?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> How many scratches would it count if you scratched at the MNHT?


I laughed at first but it is a good question. If I recall in the 5 of 7 days didn't ever hear it mentioned.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Questions for advocates of the “3 Strikes You’re Out” proposal.


Not exactly an advocate, but:



Dan Epperson said:


> Question #1)
> It doesn’t matter if you are an Amateur, Client, or Pro. Everyone wants to be able to learn from failures and try again, not be told to put the dog on the shelf till next year. How is the handler/dog team going to continue the process of learning when they are intentionally discouraged from further participation?


The proposal covers only MNHT qualification and does not preclude participation in weekend HTs where you have every opportunity to learn and hopefully qualify when you can pass the required number in the required number of attempts. Since you used the FT analogy, my dogs failure to win an open doesn't keep me from running them on the weekend.




Dan Epperson said:


> Question #2)
> Field trial dogs are not banned from participating in the FT National (FC/AFC) for failing to place three times during the year. Why should a 3 Strike rule apply to hunt test dogs and not field trial dogs?


As silly as this analogy is, it would certainly take away the time constraints at the nationals as few if any dogs would qualify if they had to place at every trial. The MNHT has always based qualification on a number of passes in some way as there is no other way to do it. You can say you are banned from participating or you can say you failed to qualify, but either way, including under the current rules, if you don't qualify, you don't qualify. Field trials are not at all analgous.



Dan Epperson said:


> Question #3)
> Proposal has the propensity to encourage watered down test because no one wants to see handler/dog team eliminated for the balance of the year. Why should the judge have to worry about anything other than setting up a challenging test with good bird placement? Think this will encourage more to join the judging pool?


I think the first part of this one actually is valid. When we had the 5 of 7, there was judge shopping and this proposal may well bring it back again and lead to clubs seeking 'easy' judges. Encouraging judges to join the judges pool, I am sure, is not something they considered. Different problem.



Dan Epperson said:


> Question #4)
> This proposal is divisive and inflames the amateurs vs. pro debate. I don’t recall this proposal being introduced to the audience of amateurs, clients, or pros all gathered together to work and put on the 2014 MN event. It would have gone over like a turd in the punch bowel. Solutions to the MN growth should bring us all together for the good of the dogs. Why should it be otherwise?


I am not sure what the issue here is. The proposal was brought up pursuant to the rules of the MNRC and is being put to a vote. Checking with the workers at a particular national is not a requirement. It is a proposal of one way to limit the huge number that qualify for the MNHT. Some folks will have differing opinions and are free to encourage their clubs to vote against or put forth their own proposals, but I do not question the dedication to the game of the folks who make the proposal just because I don't agree with it.


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

I think another thing that needs to be talked about is how this will affect entries for early season tests up north. Last few winters have been bad up here with some areas still under snow and ice even now.. How many owner/handlers who can't go south will enter those March and April tests knowing a fail due to "winter rust" could make or break their MN attempts? Quite a few tests closed without filling up so far without this restriction. I know of around 15 dogs, my 2 included, that won't be entering any tests until the end of May if this passes.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

DoubleHaul said:


> Not exactly an advocate, but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PS. Despite our difference of opinions, I think you are an alright guy and good debater. Hopefully our exchange will help everyone make up their own mind.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Total lack of effort on your part to debate the merits of the "three strikes yer out" proposal. Surely you or someone from the Ohio /NY club's who are advocating this decisive plan can do a better job countering the issues I raised?


I'm not advocating anything and I'm not from Ohio or NY. You can't compare this to Qualifying for the Nat. Am or the National Open, for the dogs that Q for those events there in a elite group and should be proud of it, I would think that the HT folks that want to Q and run the MN would feel the same way. Those dogs need a win and points to Q. Why should the MN be any different, since the ht dogs can't have a win then there should be something more to it than just passing X amount of test without any stipulation on how many tries it may take. For the dog that took 20 tries to Q I don't believe they are in the same class as the dog that went 6/8.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Amen to that.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

The fly on the wall wants to know what happens if a 3x MNHT qualifier decides to run a couple tests; fails 2 and then scratches from the next 2? 

Personally, I think the whole discussion is very ironic. The current stated purpose of the MNHT is to identify the best hunting retrievers. If you decide one year that a dog is one of the best, why would that dog need to prove itself again at the local level? Seems like a MNHT qualifier from one year should be automatically eligible to run the next. If it fails a MNHT then it needs to re-qualify. There is dog in our region who has passed 91 hunt tests. Are we really going to say that this dog is not good enough to run a national? Seems very ludicrous. At what point ( # of ht passes) does it take to say that a dog is a pretty darn good hunting dog? Does the failure of MH titled dogs, or MNH etc. not indicate that the statement that qualification at a test is based on a standard seems a bit off? With over 50%+ of the local entries being MH titled dogs, one should expect a large number of them to pass the weekend tests; as they have already demonstrated that they can perform to "the standard" of several judges.

My recomendation if one wants to cut the number of dogs eligible for the MNHT is to make the requirement of having a MH title plus 6 passes each year for dogs who did not qualify at the prior years MNHT. Passes for the MNHT qualification do not start until after the MH is earned, possibly coupled with a 3 MNHT passes and done rule. Does a MNH(7) really say any more than a MNH does? Presuming that everything is based on a standard? Kind of like passing a GED test 7 times.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

kona's mom said:


> I know of around 15 dogs, my 2 included, that won't be entering any tests until the end of May if this passes.


And then try getting into 8 tests. Especially if you went to the Sept/Oct MN and lost those fall possibilites to Q.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> The current stated purpose of the MNHT is to identify the best hunting retrievers.


Where is that stated? Frankly 'best' is not what HTs, weekend or MNHT, are set up to find in any way shape or form.

The MNRC Mission:


> The Master National Retriever Club is committed to testing retrievers annually to a standard of excellence within American Kennel Club guidelines, celebrating the hunting tradition, and educating all those involved.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Dan Epperson said:


> Nate, I don’t know who you are because your real name isn’t displayed. Thus, I can determine from what point of reference you are coming from as handler. I do take exception to some of your statements.
> 
> Nate C - “They need to do something because the MN title is being watered down.”
> 
> ...



I have a Master National Hunter from 2011 Maryland, 2012 Alabama, 2013 Kansas, and will be running in SC this year. The title is being watered down not the event (which is a different issue). There was a typo in my last post. There where 300-400 coming out of Alabama on track for the title. With an average pass rate in the last 4 years of around 40-45% you could see 250 plus dogs get there MNH title this year alone. If you keep this pace from 2011 when things really started to blow up, to 2016 in Missouri (5 year span) you are going to get almost 800 dogs earning the title. So yes this is watering down the title. It is basically the new MH and a MH is now a senior. 

I have two rational for making the master national harder. First, to your comment isn't the distance enough. NO! So a MHN title doesn't mean the dog is better then a MH it just means the owner has more money and the dog traveled further? you are basically saying you want the MN to be a cool hang out for a bunch of rich guys, retirees and pros and you don't really care about the quality of the work as long as it is pretty good? You should exclude dogs that are just mediocre. If you are not killing weekend test the dog is not good enough for the MN. The second rational is there are too many dogs to operate the test. There are going be 1000 dogs in SC and likely be close to that many in Missouri. It is so hard to support that many dogs. They need to get it back down to 600 or so. I though the proposals about limiting the flights or the number of dogs that someone can take were bad. How about we raise the standards. Eliminate the weaker dogs. When I say raise the standard I am not talking about the actually rules. I am saying set up harder tests within the rules. Then add things like 6 of 8 to enforce consistence. Region reps then need to eliminate judge shopping by improving the consistence in judges. If a judge has unusually high pass rate the rep should go to the even and see what is going on. If he is setting up wide open W's at 60 yards with no factors tell him/her that his standard is too low. But then don't get ticky tacky like the Grand. It seems like they some times look for little things to makr down dogs. Which is there thing and is fine, I just don't want to see the MN go down that route. I want good, fair, and consistent judging and really hard tests. If your first year running masters takes 6 out of 10 to get your title that is OK, work hard next season and qualify then. If many of the younger 14-18 month dogs can no longer do master work and need to train until they are 20-22 months so be it.

They also need to look at raising the standard at the MN itself. but that is a different discussion.


----------



## T-bone (Jul 15, 2009)

Thoughts from an amateur ...

We have two dogs. One that can manage the 6 out of 8 and one that can't. The one that can't is the more talented dog but he can't consistently keep it together. Some of his fails were because we double handled in a series for his safety as he's had a major shoulder injury but even without that situation he probably couldn't manage the 6 out of 8. If he could, would he then be able to handle the MN? I seriously doubt it because he's shown his hand during the year. Is it because of the tests or the fact that I'm my hubby and I are amateurs? Absolutely not! Does he deserve to go to the MN? If it takes him 20 tests to qualify I don't think so. However, those are my personal standards and I know not everyone will agree with me. 

I'm not saying that the 6 out of 8 rule should be implemented but I wouldn't be upset if it was.

Personally, if I'm going to go to a National I want it to be a journey that challenged me, my dog and our standards.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Nate_C said:


> I have a Master National Hunter from 2011 Maryland, 2012 Alabama, 2013 Kansas, and will be running in SC this year. The title is being watered down not the event (which is a different issue). There was a typo in my last post. There where 300-400 coming out of Alabama on track for the title. With an average pass rate in the last 4 years of around 40-45% you could see 250 plus dogs get there MNH title this year alone. If you keep this pace from 2011 when things really started to blow up, to 2016 in Missouri (5 year span) you are going to get almost 800 dogs earning the title. So yes this is watering down the title. It is basically the new MH and a MH is now a senior.
> 
> I have two rational for making the master national harder. First, to your comment isn't the distance enough. NO! So a MHN title doesn't mean the dog is better then a MH it just means the owner has more money and the dog traveled further? you are basically saying you want the MN to be a cool hang out for a bunch of rich guys, retirees and pros and you don't really care about the quality of the work as long as it is pretty good? You should exclude dogs that are just mediocre. If you are not killing weekend test the dog is not good enough for the MN. The second rational is there are too many dogs to operate the test. There are going be 1000 dogs in SC and likely be close to that many in Missouri. It is so hard to support that many dogs. They need to get it back down to 600 or so. I though the proposals about limiting the flights or the number of dogs that someone can take were bad. How about we raise the standards. Eliminate the weaker dogs. When I say raise the standard I am not talking about the actually rules. I am saying set up harder tests within the rules. Then add things like 6 of 8 to enforce consistence. Region reps then need to eliminate judge shopping by improving the consistence in judges. If a judge has unusually high pass rate the rep should go to the even and see what is going on. If he is setting up wide open W's at 60 yards with no factors tell him/her that his standard is too low. But then don't get ticky tacky like the Grand. It seems like they some times look for little things to makr down dogs. Which is there thing and is fine, I just don't want to see the MN go down that route. I want good, fair, and consistent judging and really hard tests. If your first year running masters takes 6 out of 10 to get your title that is OK, work hard next season and qualify then. If many of the younger 14-18 month dogs can no longer do master work and need to train until they are 20-22 months so be it.
> 
> They also need to look at raising the standard at the MN itself. but that is a different discussion.


Nate, I don't disagree with you at all. However, I think that ship has sailed. I don't think they will ever get that genie put back in the bottle.

The MN is what it is; a celebration of Master dogs. There is no separate MN standard, and the MN test, is just the equivalent of 2 weekend master tests. You want something more, go run field trials.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

I do not really have a big issue with the 6-8 passes, it is the scratch policy that goes with it. That needs to come out. I like the idea someone brought up is if you pass the MN this year, you qual for next year. If not you re-qualify. That would slow things down some.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The wording for the scratching is in there because when the 5o7 was in (unscrupulous) people would go to the 2 or 3rd series, know they weren't gonna pass, so they'd simply leave the grounds and scratch their dog due to "injury; rather than fail. So I assume they are trying to halt those actions before they start. Not sure the wording is right, seems over technical. Should say something like any dog scratched after the start of a test, must have a verified injury (not sure it needs to be a vet, but should be at least the hunt test committee, and should have paperwork on file/ to go in with the hunt report), otherwise the test will be scored as a fail.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken the proposal either passes or fails based on wording. Another club would have to write up another proposal worded differently.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> The wording for the scratching is in there because when the 5o7 was in (unscrupulous) people would go to the 2 or 3rd series, know they weren't gonna pass, so they'd simply leave the grounds and scratch their dog due to "injury; rather than fail. So I assume they are trying to halt those actions before they start. Not sure the wording is right, seems over technical. Should say something like any dog scratched after the start of a test, must have a verified injury (not sure it needs to be a vet, but should be at least the hunt test committee, and should have paperwork on file/ to go in with the hunt report), otherwise the test will be scored as a fail.


Unfortunately, it says what it says. Even for legitimate injuries if you can't get to the vet until Monday, it is a fail. A comet hits your house, no matter how early you tell the HTS before the event, it is a fail.

I understand the concern, but this is overkill. I guess it may tell us something about the folks who run on the sponsoring clubs' circuit, though.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> So yes this is watering down the title. It is basically the new MH and a MH is now a senior.


If the title is so watered down less than five years after it was introduced, perhaps it wasn't much of a title in the first place? When it was coming out and being debated back then, nobody seemed to think it was much of a title, but more of a nice recognition for dogs that have passed several MNs?

If you tried to tell most folks that all other things being equal a MNH is better than a MH dog, they would laugh in your face. You simply cannot compare the two.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> If the title is so watered down less than five years after it was introduced, perhaps it wasn't much of a title in the first place? When it was coming out and being debated back then, nobody seemed to think it was much of a title, but more of a nice recognition for dogs that have passed several MNs?
> 
> If you tried to tell most folks that all other things being equal a MNH is better than a MH dog, they would laugh in your face. You simply cannot compare the two.


Without know the dogs yes I would say just on face value that a MNH is better then a MH. A MNH has to have at least 14 MH passes and 3 MN passes. They are at least a very hard double MH test with combined scores. How could some laugh in your face? However is it significant more ie a HRCH versus a GRHRCH or QA2 versus FC, no not at all. That was my point I I think there should be more differentiation. The 6/8 would add to that some.


----------



## dgreenwell (Apr 16, 2010)

I have 2 dogs. We have been to the MN the last 4 years. I have come home with one plate. I work a corporate job 50-60 hrs a week. I train and throw ducks on Sat. I added up all of the Master tests we have run and our average is about 65% Not good enough under this system. I think it is a it is a good thing that MNH get to be exempt but for what it is worth I have seen plenty of MNHs act like dogs and implode in a test

As someone said previously the MN is a celebration of good dogs. For me it is my vacation. I will continue to try to qualify and I hope to see you all there.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

The master Nationals is watered down?????? Only someone ignorant would make such a call. Against a standard and the large number of pros it has become a very significant event. The number are being driver by several factore


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

wojo said:


> The master Nationals is watered down?????? Only someone ignorant would make such a call. Against a standard and the large number of pros it has become a very significant event. The number are being driver by several factore


Well said.....it is amazing how many comments on here are from people that say they have no interest in the MN but then say this is what you should do. 

The tests are set up by 8 judges from around the country that have a week to run setup dogs, tune and tweak the tests before the MN starts. In total if you pass the weeks worth of those tests you should be proud of that dog. The time management issues interfere or limit some tests but with the vote to run 5 solid tests rather than pushing 6 "quicker" tests as in CA that should result in even tougher tests. 

Reading some of the replies reminds me of all the people that have no kids but believe they are the experts on raising kids...... not! Ignorance is bliss to some.


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate_C said:


> I have a Master National Hunter from 2011 Maryland, 2012 Alabama, 2013 Kansas, and will be running in SC this year. The title is being watered down not the event (which is a different issue). There was a typo in my last post. There where 300-400 coming out of Alabama on track for the title. With an average pass rate in the last 4 years of around 40-45% you could see 250 plus dogs get there MNH title this year alone. If you keep this pace from 2011 when things really started to blow up, to 2016 in Missouri (5 year span) you are going to get almost 800 dogs earning the title. So yes this is watering down the title. It is basically the new MH and a MH is now a senior.
> 
> I have two rational for making the master national harder. First, to your comment isn't the distance enough. NO! So a MHN title doesn't mean the dog is better then a MH it just means the owner has more money and the dog traveled further? you are basically saying you want the MN to be a cool hang out for a bunch of rich guys, retirees and pros and you don't really care about the quality of the work as long as it is pretty good? You should exclude dogs that are just mediocre. If you are not killing weekend test the dog is not good enough for the MN. The second rational is there are too many dogs to operate the test. There are going be 1000 dogs in SC and likely be close to that many in Missouri. It is so hard to support that many dogs. They need to get it back down to 600 or so. I though the proposals about limiting the flights or the number of dogs that someone can take were bad. How about we raise the standards. Eliminate the weaker dogs. When I say raise the standard I am not talking about the actually rules. I am saying set up harder tests within the rules. Then add things like 6 of 8 to enforce consistence. Region reps then need to eliminate judge shopping by improving the consistence in judges. If a judge has unusually high pass rate the rep should go to the even and see what is going on. If he is setting up wide open W's at 60 yards with no factors tell him/her that his standard is too low. But then don't get ticky tacky like the Grand. It seems like they some times look for little things to makr down dogs. Which is there thing and is fine, I just don't want to see the MN go down that route. I want good, fair, and consistent judging and really hard tests. If your first year running masters takes 6 out of 10 to get your title that is OK, work hard next season and qualify then. If many of the younger 14-18 month dogs can no longer do master work and need to train until they are 20-22 months so be it.
> 
> They also need to look at raising the standard at the MN itself. but that is a different discussion.


 I never implied nor made the following statements, “isn’t the distance enough” or “that I didn’t care about the quality of dog work at the cool MN hangout.” Why do you feel it’s necessary to make up false statements to support your position? 

I will not put words in your mouth. Instead I’ll ask you straight forward questions.

Nate, why did you make the following statements about MH tests, “I am saying set up harder tests within the rules” and “If he is setting up wide open W's at 60 yards with no factors tell him/her that his standard is too low.” 

Do you actually run in or observe MH test that are in your opinion are “too easy?” In what part of the country does this happen? Or do you think it’s just easier at locations you’ve not run?

I’ve run hunt test in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Louisiana, Minnesota and found plenty of factors and distances in all. 

Did you even read my statements before launching into orbit? 

I stated a desire to keep the standards for weekend MH test and the MN as they are now buy saying. “I want to…….



run difficult, challenging weekend test with excellent bird placement.
experience and see new setups and new terrain in different parts of the county
run under “tough and demanding judges who raise the bar for us but play squarely within the standard.
 
It sounds to me like we might agree on the three bullets above doesn’t it Nate? I believe the current weekend MH and MN format and judging is accomplishing this now, do you or don’t you?

Obviously, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the impact and justification of the “3 Strikes Your Out” proposal. Interested in your reply, but I believe the growth proposals submitted to all by the MNRC deserve much more of our attention instead of digging up an old dead horse that got buried out back a few years ago.


----------

