# Is It Possible For An Amateur To Compete against Pros In Hunt Tests?



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Not if you cannot get entered. 
How does a test finalize and 50 minutes later the 90 dog limit is reached? HMMMMM


----------



## jerrod denton (Jul 17, 2010)

Its not possible for an amateur to compete against a pro in a hunt test because its not a competition haha


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Well when you have a couple " Handlers" take up 1/3 of the entries it doesn't leave many spots open, and then scratch at the last minute NICE......... They might have to go with a "Owner handler" Master, to let the guy who wants to run his own dog a chance to run....


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

In this case you have three handlers take up 2/3 of the entries. Should make for great mechanics.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Which test is it???


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Wait...are you all insinuating that one of the AKC's rule changes had unintended consequences? :roll:


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Keep your eye on the entries as it gets closer to the event close. As Todd mentioned, often times pro's will scratch dogs as they get closer to the event and then spots open up.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Why not just enter?

/Paul


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Handler Error said:


> Not if you cannot get entered.
> How does a test finalize and 50 minutes later the 90 dog limit is reached? HMMMMM


First off, poor thread title. No such thing as head-to-head competition in hunt tests.

To your point about a test filling so quickly, I doubt it happened by chance. Sounds like someone may have had some "inside information" regarding when entries would open. Whether it's pros or amateurs, it's sad that certain event committee members feel justified in leaking the date and time to a select few. 

Almost as bad as the secretary that manipulates the draw to put all the club members and friends in the flight with the perceived easier set of judges.

I guess fairness and impartiality are just below some people.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Just go have fun! Run your dog!!


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> Well when you have a couple " Handlers" take up 1/3 of the entries it doesn't leave many spots open, and then scratch at the last minute NICE.........* They might have to go with a "Owner handler" Master, to let the guy who wants to run his own dog a chance to run*....


This might not be a bad idea. Not only would it make it easier for new handlers bringing dogs up from Senior for the first time, but you wouldn't have to run against a truck full of MH's trying to qualify for the Master National. Say what you like but HT's are somewhat competitive and not all the dogs are going to pass even if they meet the standard.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Tony Marshall said:


> This might not be a bad idea. Not only would it make it easier for new handlers bringing dogs up from Senior for the first time, but you wouldn't have to run against a truck full of MH's trying to qualify for the Master National. Say what you like but HT's are somewhat competitive and not all the dogs are going to pass even if they meet the standard.


Why wouldn't they pass if they meet the standard?


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Tony Marshall said:


> you wouldn't have to run against a truck full of MH's trying to qualify for the Master National. .


NO ONE IS RUNNING AGAINST ANY ONE, it's a Hunt Test.

The answer is , if you intend to run enter early.

Bert


----------



## honkin (May 5, 2006)

A couple of the pros are real good friends of mine, and I am not upset with them. I know they are trying to make a living. But the next closest test to the 90 dog master that the OP was referring to opened yesterday with a 60 dog master. It was full in 15 minutes, I know because I started signing up, and on the last button click it said " sorry, as you were completing your entry, the flight was filled. I guess I need to learn to type faster.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Tony Marshall said:


> This might not be a bad idea. Not only would it make it easier for new handlers bringing dogs up from Senior for the first time, but you wouldn't have to run against a truck full of MH's trying to qualify for the Master National. Say what you like but HT's are somewhat competitive and not all the dogs are going to pass even if they meet the standard.


Care to explain how they are competitive?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Tony Marshall said:


> This might not be a bad idea. Not only would it make it easier for new handlers bringing dogs up from Senior for the first time, but you wouldn't have to run against a truck full of MH's trying to qualify for the Master National. Say what you like but HT's are somewhat competitive and not all the dogs are going to pass even if they meet the standard.


You are not running against ANYONE! You run against a standard that is the same for everyone. 
If you gripe is that an event filled up and closed before you entered, then I suggest you do not wait until the closing date. No competition there, pros often don't have the luxury of waiting until the last minute to plan their upcoming events. 
The flip side of what the OP is bitching about is that many clubs count on pros to fill the test up because they do, in most instances, enter early and that helps a club determine what is needed for the test (birds, workers, food...). One of the biggest gripes I hear about HRC is walk up entries on the day of the event. These make planning almost impossible. 

The Thread could have been ended with one simple statement, shut up and enter the test and don't wait until the last minute.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

honkin said:


> A couple of the pros are real good friends of mine, and I am not upset with them. I know they are trying to make a living. But the next closest test to the 90 dog master that the OP was referring to opened yesterday with a 60 dog master. It was full in 15 minutes, I know because I started signing up, and on the last button click it said " sorry, as you were completing your entry, the flight was filled. I guess I need to learn to type faster.


According to this, nobody was waiting until the last minute. There is something seriously wrong if this is true.


----------



## Lucky Number Seven (Feb 22, 2009)

2tall said:


> According to this, nobody was waiting until the last minute. There is something seriously wrong if this is true.


Exactly, the OP said that 50 minutes after the event was opened for entries, it was filled up. So, it didn't even take 1 day, 1/2 day, it took less than an hour to fill a 90 dog Master, after Entry Express opened the event for it to max out. The OP titled the thread in a way saying that in this situation the "competition" was for entries limit on the test, not competing in the actual test against a pro, is how I take it.

My advice is keep watching the event and see if scratches happen toward the closing date but yes that is an interesting conundrum to have as that filled up really fast!!


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

It will be interesting to see how many scratches there are in your WI HT. If the numbers I have calculated for a couple stay around the 20% mark that scratched after closing then it may be up to clubs to track the offenders and not allow them entry based on their abuse of the system history.

Just a thought several of us discussed at training a couple of days ago. Handler/Pros scratch once shame on me, scratch twice red flag, scratch 3 times black listed for a year.

I understand making a living but screwing other competitors is just wrong in this endeavor. That is what scratching after close pros are doing. Cheat in almost any other area and you are out.


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

The pros have an obligation to their clients to get the dogs qualified for the master national. All the pros I talk to around here hate the limited entries because like all of us they have to tie up money months in advance to get entered in events. Then if they get lucky and qualify the dog earlier then its a scratch. I don't know what the complaint is really its fair for everyone, get entered early and plan in advance. I managed to get my one dog entered in enough events to finish his title and get him qualified and I am an amateur.

Russell


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Huff said:


> The pros have an obligation to their clients to get the dogs qualified for the master national. All the pros I talk to around here hate the limited entries because like all of us they have to tie up money months in advance to get entered in events. Then if they get lucky and qualify the dog earlier then its a scratch. I don't know what the complaint is really its fair for everyone, get entered early and plan in advance. I managed to get my one dog entered in enough events to finish his title and get him qualified and I am an amateur.
> 
> Russell


Why do they have to scratch the dog because is it has "it's ticket punched"? 

Face it folks, the the Master test has become a pro show. As individuals, you can decide whether that's a good or bad thing, but it's here to stay. It doesn't matter to me. If my dog has been fully trained and performs as it should, we'll pass the test. The other participants have nothing to do with that.

I have never felt I was competing against anyone, pro or amateur, at a hunt test. I might have been competing against the Judges a time of 2, though-LOL!!!!-Paul


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Brad B said:


> Care to explain how they are competitive?


I don't necessarily agree with the thought process but here it is. Certain judges tend to pass the same percentage of dogs. This happens regardless of the area, percentage of pros in the flight, or proximity of the Master National. Certain areas/tests have stronger fields of dogs. Pros in a flight are normally better prepared. Finally, a local Master National certainly means more MH dogs in the field that have already proven their ability to meet the standard. If the pass percentages remain consistent, the perception is that you are in competition. If your dog isn't within the top % then you fail.

I personally have not seen this. I do know people who keep up with the %'s and do their best to run under the "easier" judges. My preference is a hard but fair judge. It is nice to go to the 3rd with the A list amateurs & pros.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Seems to be quite a bit of discontent since the ability for clubs to limit their numbers. I wonder if some clubs are doing this (electing to limit numbers) even though they have grounds available to split if needed. I know I was surprised to see a couple of clubs that, in the past, have run multiple flights successfully, but have elected this year to limit the entry.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

fishduck said:


> I don't necessarily agree with the thought process but here it is. Certain judges tend to pass the same percentage of dogs. This happens regardless of the area, percentage of pros in the flight, or proximity of the Master National. Certain areas/tests have stronger fields of dogs. Pros in a flight are normally better prepared. Finally, a local Master National certainly means more MH dogs in the field that have already proven their ability to meet the standard. If the pass percentages remain consistent, the perception is that you are in competition. If your dog isn't within the top % then you fail.
> 
> I personally have not seen this. I do know people who keep up with the %'s and do their best to run under the "easier" judges. My preference is a hard but fair judge. It is nice to go to the 3rd with the A list amateurs & pros.


I know a number of judges in my region and none of them judge to pass a set percentage of dogs. That's stupid and those judges should go find something else to do. Sure everyone would like to get a certain set of judges at a test then some may just run and don't care whose judging, I've done both myself. But luck of the draw doesn't always give you the judges you want so you go forth and do your best. In my opinion, if someone is having to always shop for trying to get easy judges, then they are probably not doing all they can to train sufficiently or it could be the dog. I agree it's nice to go to the 3rd but I could care less who is in it with me. Perceived competition among HT participants is something that's generated within that person it has nothing to do with judges or pass percentages. If you're that worried about who you're doing better than then you should be running FT's.


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

I know of a pro that also missed out because that test filled up so quick, so amateurs aren't the only ones. You have to stay on top of it for these tests near the end of the calendar year for AKC.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

championretrievers said:


> I know of a pro that also missed out because that test filled up so quick, so amateurs aren't the only ones. You have to stay on top of it for these tests near the end of the calendar year for AKC.


True, happened to me. Potentially cost me a couple of titles and MN qual.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Vicky Trainor said:


> Seems to be quite a bit of discontent since the ability for clubs to limit their numbers. I wonder if some clubs are doing this (electing to limit numbers) even though they have grounds available to split if needed. I know I was surprised to see a couple of clubs that, in the past, have run multiple flights successfully, but have elected this year to limit the entry.


Just because they were successful and have the grounds available does not mean they really want to handle multiple flights...then add on top of the pile, finding judges in the HT world is getting harder due to the requirements...


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

This is my first post because I am just learning this game and need to take everything in before I start giving out advice. 

Let me clarify what the OP is saying (since I have had a conversation with him about it.)* Neither him or I waited to get signed up till the last minute*. I was actually* checking twice a day (minimum)* to make sure I could get entered. *The test filled up in under an hour*. Mine and the OP's assumption is that these guys had to have been tipped off somehow to just so happen to be located at their computer the moment the test was finalized. 

I understand why clubs limit entries and I also understand that the pros are making a living at this and rely on the ability to get entered in tests. My problem is that little old me, with just one dog, not knowing a lot of people in the game, doesn't stand a chance at titling my dog when I can't even get entered in the tests. (Not because I wait but because the big names in the game are tipped off to when the test will get finalized). I have a young family and rely on tests within a 4-5 hour drive for affordability and to limit time away from my family. If I can't even get entered in a test (while checking twice a day for it to go final, it is going to take an awful long time for me to get my dog titled if I can only enter one or two tests per year. I now have to make the decision on whether I expand my area that I am willing to travel to a test or just give up on the game altogether.

I have run 4 master hunt tests in my short time in this game and have pitched in to provide some sort of help at every one of them. Whether I threw birds, set up, tore down or helped re-bird. I can't say the same for the big time pros that were at these tests. What happens when guys like me, that can't get our dogs entered, quit volunteering our weekends????? I'm guessing we wll find out soon enough....


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Handler in Training said:


> This is my first post because I am just learning this game and need to take everything in before I start giving out advice.
> 
> Let me clarify what the OP is saying (since I have had a conversation with him about it.)* Neither him or I waited to get signed up till the last minute*. I was actually* checking twice a day (minimum)* to make sure I could get entered. *The test filled up in under an hour*. Mine and the OP's assumption is that these guys had to have been tipped off somehow to just so happen to be located at their computer the moment the test was finalized.
> 
> ...


I am missing the point here. Why not just enter earlier???


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I am missing the point here. Why not just enter earlier???


Because it was not open for entries. It opened, 50 minutes later it was full.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

If a club is now allowed to limit the number of entries per stake, then they should be allowed to limit the number of entries per handler per stake. 
Along those lines, I once read a well-conceived proposal for limiting entries in Opens, in the spirit of fair play, sportsmanship and the hosting club's best interests.


----------



## Lucky Number Seven (Feb 22, 2009)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I am missing the point here. Why not just enter earlier???


People can't watch the website 24 hours a day!


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

The two tests that come to mind are in NE. They filled, both, within a short time of the open. They are not til August and the 90 dog and 60 dog limits are full. I would like to have ran them and have in the past but so be it. I will have to look elsewhere.

I looked at the number of dogs at these two tests and you have 4 to 5 Pros with over 80% of the dogs entered in the events. Then there are 6 to 14 AMs running the balance of the dogs. My initial thought on this is logistics if a honor and walk up are put into the first series. Also, you know the order does not mean anything because it is toast to begin with. They will need some good Marshals at these tests to keep order. All you need is for one of the Pros to enter some Senior or Juniors and then you got some head scratching to do.

They do need to figure something out when you have scratches. Some type of stand by as I would have liked to have that option.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Not in an effort to diminish personal pain or situation but from a policy perspective on limits, the following are test dates and entry status. I did not carve out MN clubs so we can assume the data is a little slanted. However, not all need to run under MN clubs to title a MH dog. 

Tests open for entry through 09/13 show:

14 Masters with limits not full
5 Masters with limits full

The only full tests have 60 dog limits

The open limited tests have 90 or 180 dog limits

Seems to me the issue is the smaller MN club that has grounds or accommodation issues to begin with. 

So is the 'policy' the issue?


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

There is a 90 dog limited test in NE for Missouri Valley RC that is at the limit. This test closes on the 5th of August and runs on the 18th.

The comment about the proximity to the National MN test makes sense to me why these filled so soon with Pros and folks planning to run in the NMHT.


----------



## Mallard Mugger (Jul 29, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> Not in an effort to diminish personal pain or situation but from a policy perspective on limits, the following are test dates and entry status. I did not carve out MN clubs so we can assume the data is a little slanted. However, not all need to run under MN clubs to title a MH dog.
> 
> Tests open for entry through 09/13 show:
> 
> ...


Did you take into account the 4-5 hour max. travel time limit from Iowa (I'm assuming)? I don't have time to look it up.... That's part of the problem when you don't have deep pockets and not doing it for a living. How is the avgerage joe suppose to play the game when it fills up in 50 minutes by approximately 16 people or so. That's a little over a 5 dog/person avg. Or in this case 5 pros with 72 dogs (~14 dogs/pro). That is getting a little carried away and I could forsee a limit to the # of dogs entered per person but of course that will not limit the pro's helpers/workers entering.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

In agility trials the club is allowed to reserve a certain number of running spots for workers. Might not be a bad idea for the hunt tests.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Obvious solution is... Run the other venues NAHRA and HRC hardly ever get bombarded, they are not as great money makers for Pros., a lot of the time you can sign up for the test day of, none of that planning in advance junk  You do need to watch those Southern & Anniversary ones, those dang amateurs will try to lock you out, and they never scratch their dogs


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

I know that clubs count on the pros to fill up the entry's and with any luck bring some jr and sr dogs to get more dogs in those stakes but also with out the average joe trying to run his own dog it sucks. there must be some sort of comprise. also if the pros cancel there dogs do they get the entry fees back? and also is there a list that people left out can get on if dogs cancel? I am curious I don't know how that works


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> If a club is now allowed to limit the number of entries per stake, then they should be allowed to limit the number of entries per handler per stake.
> Along those lines, I once read a well-conceived proposal for limiting entries in Opens, in the spirit of fair play, sportsmanship and the hosting club's best interests.


And we know how far that proposal went, the RAC never brought it up for discussion much less a vote.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Mallard Mugger said:


> That is getting a little carried away and I could forsee a limit to the # of dogs entered per person but of course that will not limit the pro's helpers/workers entering.


It would if the helper/worker had to run the dogs they signed up, and the Pro couldn't. Not very many pros who will give up master level dogs to helper/workers, too much chance something handler related will go wrong, then client is wondering we he's paying Pro and not the helper/worker to train his dog . It would still bring in more handlers, which would help the test run, Pros could provide their own honor dogs. 2 guys running ten dogs runs soother than one running 20, 4 running 5 dogs a piece and your not waiting, everything juggled much easier


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Handler in Training said:


> This is my first post because I am just learning this game and need to take everything in before I start giving out advice.
> 
> Let me clarify what the OP is saying (since I have had a conversation with him about it.)* Neither him or I waited to get signed up till the last minute*. I was actually* checking twice a day (minimum)* to make sure I could get entered. *The test filled up in under an hour*. Mine and the OP's assumption is that these guys had to have been tipped off somehow to just so happen to be located at their computer the moment the test was finalized.
> 
> ...


Very good post! What EVERYONE needs to realize is that these limits have been imposed because of the success of the sport. There are so many participants that the system has become overwhelmed and an attempt is being made to solve the problem. I'm not smart enough to know if this is the right solution but two things are for sure. Time will tell if it's the answer and there will be unintended consequences that will have to be dealt with. I'm not sure where this "blame-the-pros" came from but the pros aren't the problem...the problem is the success and the phenomenal participation. Please keep in mind that a pro represents several of us "little old me's". Without them, I couldn't participate either. I'm not saying yea me and screw you, I hope, when this gets straightened out, we both can participate.

Hopefully, when these tests fill up early, the RC's will have time and resources to open it up to more participants by adding a flight or two. That could solve a whole bunch of problems!


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Spag said:


> Very good post! What EVERYONE needs to realize is that these limits have been imposed because of the success of the sport. There are so many participants that the system has become overwhelmed and an attempt is being made to solve the problem. I'm not smart enough to know if this is the right solution but two things are for sure. Time will tell if it's the answer and there will be unintended consequences that will have to be dealt with. I'm not sure where this "blame-the-pros" came from but the pros aren't the problem...the problem is the success and the phenomenal participation. Please keep in mind that a pro represents several of us "little old me's". Without them, I couldn't participate either. I'm not saying yea me and screw you, I hope, when this gets straightened out, we both can participate.
> 
> Hopefully, when these tests fill up early, the RC's will have time and resources to open it up to more participants by adding a flight or two. That could solve a whole bunch of problems!


I agree with this 100%. A big solution to the problem with clubs not being able to expand is the lack of help and JUDGES. If you want to add availability of additional flights/tests, step up and help and step up and start judging.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Mallard Mugger said:


> Did you take into account the 4-5 hour max. travel time limit from Iowa (I'm assuming)? I don't have time to look it up.... That's part of the problem when you don't have deep pockets and not doing it for a living. How is the avgerage joe suppose to play the game when it fills up in 50 minutes by approximately 16 people or so. That's a little over a 5 dog/person avg. Or in this case 5 pros with 72 dogs (~14 dogs/pro). That is getting a little carried away and I could forsee a limit to the # of dogs entered per person but of course that will not limit the pro's helpers/workers entering.


It's gonna cost if you want a custom report, by region. I'm just outlining across the entire country what % of Master Limit tests appear to be a problem. I see Kansas area folks might feel hosed.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

We've had the same problem up here with a couple tests as well, I can also tell you a 60 dog master is no fun for the judges either, know of a couple that said never again.. I don't feel it's a pro problem it's a system problem, there just trying to make a living and have found a nich, with people willing to pay them to run there dog at a level where they should be running there own dog, one other observation the past couple of weekends is that just because a guy/gal has there kennel name on the side of there truck and has a bunch of entries that doesn't mean there a "PRO" witnessed some terrible handling by people getting paid to do it..


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Hang on... 50 minutes to fill one test and 15 minutes to fill another, filled by pros primarily? 

That means someone is getting the heads up as to EXACTLY when the test will be finalized so that can sit and enter multiple dogs quickly. 

If that's the case there are a whole bunch of people involved and it's not a very fair situation. 

Just what the sport needs long term, more ways to close it off to the regular Joe.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

HNTFSH said:


> Not in an effort to diminish personal pain or situation but from a policy perspective on limits, the following are test dates and entry status. I did not carve out MN clubs so we can assume the data is a little slanted. However, not all need to run under MN clubs to title a MH dog.
> 
> Tests open for entry through 09/13 show:
> 
> ...


The policy is never the issue. It's the PEOPLE that are the issue.

Entering dogs that you think might be ready and scratching them at the last minute is a real problem created by people who are too selfish to realize they are blocking other people who have dogs that are truly ready, in the name of making a $$ or chasing a $10 master national plate.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> The policy is never the issue. It's the PEOPLE that are the issue.
> 
> Entering dogs that you think might be ready and scratching them at the last minute is a real problem created by people who are too selfish to realize they are blocking other people who have dogs that are truly ready, in the name of making a $$ or chasing a $10 master national plate.


No disagreement there!!


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

Spag said:


> Very good post! What EVERYONE needs to realize is that these limits have been imposed because of the success of the sport. There are so many participants that the system has become overwhelmed and an attempt is being made to solve the problem. I'm not smart enough to know if this is the right solution but two things are for sure. Time will tell if it's the answer and there will be unintended consequences that will have to be dealt with. I'm not sure where this "blame-the-pros" came from but the pros aren't the problem...the problem is the success and the phenomenal participation. Please keep in mind that a pro represents several of us "little old me's". Without them, I couldn't participate either. I'm not saying yea me and screw you, I hope, when this gets straightened out, we both can participate.
> 
> Hopefully, when these tests fill up early, the RC's will have time and resources to open it up to more participants by adding a flight or two. That could solve a whole bunch of problems!


I couldn't agree more! Success is definitely a demon in this situation. My problem isn't necessarily with the pros that got signed up either. I think they have every right to sign up and I would hate to see a rule that essentially limits the income a pro can bring in by limiting the number of their training dogs they can enter per test. My problem is that, I believe, (but have no proof) that these pros were tipped off to when this test would finalize and made sure they were at their computer at that time to get entered. If this is true, it is very sad and will certainly be another demon to this sport. I hope that I am wrong and we all had the same chance to get signed up. However, I seriously doubt how a person that is entering over 20 dogs in a Master test has the time to be at a computer mid-day instead of out training those 20 dogs unless they had information that the average joe didn't have.


----------



## Tommy Wallace (Jun 13, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Hang on... 50 minutes to fill one test and 15 minutes to fill another, filled by pros primarily?
> 
> That means someone is getting the heads up as to EXACTLY when the test will be finalized so that can sit and enter multiple dogs quickly.
> 
> ...


I know that they have Snowden held up in Russia, but do you think that we can some how get in touch with him & get him to release the information as to who is responsible for this. It is really sad & screwed up. I know according to the OP that the pros are in on it, but the responsible party is the one that let this info out so they could take advantage of it. I still think Snowden is the answer!!!


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

DarrinGreene said:


> Hang on... 50 minutes to fill one test and 15 minutes to fill another, filled by pros primarily?
> 
> *That means someone is getting the heads up as to EXACTLY when the test will be finalized so that can sit and enter multiple dogs quickly.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly!!!!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Nikki Malarky said:


> I know that they have Snowden held up in Russia, but do you think that we can some how get in touch with him & get him to release the information as to who is responsible for this. It is really sad & screwed up. I know according to the OP that the pros are in on it, but the responsible party is the one that let this info out so they could take advantage of it. I still think Snowden is the answer!!!


I sure hope this happens after dark or the pros involved have assistants. I ran 20 dogs a day for a couple of years and let me tell ya... There isn't any daylight available for a good pro to be sitting in front of his computer WAITING for a test to open.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Think I will play elsewhere until AKC gets this straightened out.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Think I will play elsewhere until AKC gets this straightened out.
> 
> Lonnie Spann


You're gonna run out of playgrounds before long! 

JS


----------



## Mallard Mugger (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm not saying the Pro shouldn't make a living, rather I was going down the path Darrin pointed out (but in less obvious terms). If they're running 20 dogs, and doing it well, they ain't sitting around but someone is for them to get them all in at the right time......


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Obvious solution is... Run the other venues NAHRA and HRC hardly ever get bombarded, they are not as great money makers for Pros., a lot of the time you can sign up for the test day of, none of that planning in advance junk  You do need to watch those Southern & Anniversary ones, those dang amateurs will try to lock you out, and they never scratch their dogs


AKC and Master tests is the gold standard for HT dogs. that is why the other venues feel less pressure for numbers.

MP


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

JS said:


> You're gonna run out of playgrounds before long!
> 
> JS


What I was thinking


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

Lucky Number Seven said:


> Exactly, the OP said that 50 minutes after the event was opened for entries, it was filled up. So, it didn't even take 1 day, 1/2 day, it took less than an hour to fill a 90 dog Master, after Entry Express opened the event for it to max out. The OP titled the thread in a way saying that in this situation the "competition" was for entries limit on the test, not competing in the actual test against a pro, is how I take it.
> 
> My advice is keep watching the event and see if scratches happen toward the closing date but yes that is an interesting conundrum to have as that filled up really fast!!


Wow, if that's true, it's going to be like buying concert tickets.. sold out fast. Not an unexpected consequence though given the ratio of pros to actual owner/handlers.. It's been like that at the Master level for some time.


----------



## Tommy Wallace (Jun 13, 2008)

Mallard Mugger said:


> I'm not saying the Pro shouldn't make a living, rather I was going down the path Darrin pointed out (but in less obvious terms). If they're running 20 dogs, and doing it well, they ain't sitting around but someone is for them to get them all in at the right time......


My thoughts exactly. I think we should find out who these culprits are & then we should use waterboarding techniques to get the answers we want. I think I have been watching to much NEWS about our Government!!!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

FinnLandR said:


> Exactly, Darrin. Those who actually bothered to read the OP's post and his friend's post seem to be the only ones to get what the problem is. Too many people here on RTF who don't bother to read before they type.
> 
> It's not about bashing pros, it's about bashing insider trading no matter who you are.


Is there/what is the rule regarding sharing the finalized date?


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

I hope this thread is brought to the attention of the AKC and is noticed by the boards of the various clubs.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

HNTFSH said:


> Is there/what is the rule regarding sharing the finalized date?


I'm not sure there can be a rule. Club members would naturally be informed.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

rbr said:


> I'm not sure there can be a rule. Club members would naturally be informed.


That's what I'm thinking. I've not been a HT Secretary and hopefully never am. Just curious about the 'unscrupulous' talk within the thread regarding midnight secret meetings and insider trading. Easier to address situation in separation of fact and fiction.


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

There's an easy fix to this. Any time a club limits entries, they should put in their premium when it will open for entries. This can easily be done before finalizing the event, so people have a chance to see it.

There's not a rule requiring it, but if they did, it would put the conspiracy talk to rest (maybe...for a second or two...)

I had thought this was discussed as part of the rule when you limit entries, but I may be mistaken, or it may have gotten edited out of the final version.


----------



## JimB (Aug 31, 2012)

Is there any chance of having the entry system work as a lottery instead of first entered gets the spot in limited entry tests? Allow all entries to be accepted into the draw for a certain time period (say a week for getting your entry into the draw) before having the lottery drawn. There would have to be a 3rd party do the lottery to make it fair though. 

Could there be a way for the AKC or a software program on EE do the lottery draw and post those that are entered into a limited entry test? This same software could also draw the order of dogs on the waiting list for replacing any scratches. This would make it fair for Joe Hunter entering his dog and local pros trying to enter multiple dogs...every dog has the same chance of being entered into the test. 

The logistics of running a test with 80% of the dogs being run by 2 or 3 people is a different issue on its own.

Just a thought from someone outside looking in....:2c:


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

JimB said:


> Is there any chance of having the entry system work as a lottery instead of first entered gets the spot in limited entry tests? Allow all entries to be accepted into the draw for a certain time period (say a week for getting your entry into the draw) before having the lottery drawn. There would have to be a 3rd party do the lottery to make it fair though.
> 
> Could there be a way for the AKC or a software program on EE do the lottery draw and post those that are entered into a limited entry test? This same software could also draw the order of dogs on the waiting list for replacing any scratches. This would make it fair for Joe Hunter entering his dog and local pros trying to enter multiple dogs...every dog has the same chance of being entered into the test.
> 
> ...


If I am a club member throwing birds most of the day I would like to at least have a guarantee of running my dog in my own test. ;-)


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Handler Error said:


> Not if you cannot get entered.
> How does a test finalize and 50 minutes later the 90 dog limit is reached? HMMMMM


Where (what state) is this happening? (90 entries in 50 minutes???!!)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Ron in Portland said:


> There's an easy fix to this. Any time a club limits entries, they should put in their premium when it will open for entries. This can easily be done before finalizing the event, so people have a chance to see it.
> 
> There's not a rule requiring it, but if they did, it would put the conspiracy talk to rest (maybe...for a second or two...)
> 
> I had thought this was discussed as part of the rule when you limit entries, but I may be mistaken, or it may have gotten edited out of the final version.


Good point. Only question is I think some finalization is based on things unpredictable to a specific date. Like listing judges for stakes.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Before an event can be finalized on Entry Express by the club's Event Secretary, AKC has to approve the judging slate and the event's premium. After everything has been approved by AKC, the Event Secretary can "finalize". Once finalized (a click of the FINALIZE button by the Event Secretary), the event is open for entries.


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

I think those people that are trying to get a Master title on their dog(s) should look into running their dogs at a "Non Master National Member" club. I know there are a few here and there and a Master National running pro will usually stay away from entering at those club events. You may have to travel a bit further, but you're more than welcomed to enter at their events. They seldom, if ever, have the need to split their entries. Just food for thought>>>>>>


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

BMay said:


> I think those people that are trying to get a Master title on their dog(s) should look into running their dogs at a "Non Master National Member" club. I know they a few here and there and a Master National running pro will usually stay away from entering at those club events. You may have to travel a bit further, but you're more than welcomed to enter at their events. They seldom, if ever, have the need to split their entries. Just food for thought>>>>>>


 It's a good idea in theory but, many people (myself included) really like to enter their local events. And if those happen to be MN clubs with limited entries and you find yourself in a situation like the OP described, it's kind of a slap in the face (and wallet) to find another test that might be an 8 - 10 hr. drive away, MN member or not, just to run your dog, because certain people had insider info. on date/time an event opened that you weren't privy to.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Julie R. said:


> It's a good idea in theory but, many people (myself included) really like to enter their local events. And if those happen to be MN clubs with limited entries and you find yourself in a situation like the OP described, it's kind of a slap in the face (and wallet) to find another test that might be an 8 - 10 hr. drive away, MN member or not, just to run your dog, because certain people had insider info. on date/time an event opened that you weren't privy to.


Not suggesting it's not disappointing but doesn't this issue transfer across different regions of the country each year and only at certain times of the test year, like just ahead of the MN in the region?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

It sounds like the amateurs who run and financially support hunt tests have lost control of their sport to professional trainers who depend on amateurs for their livelihood. 

Tail Wagging The Dog Regards


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Regrettably Ed, I think all the dog games are headed in that direction.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

if everyone had to snail mail the check and enter old school and we did the random draw out of a salad bowl on the test secs kitchen table none of this would be an issue. This is all Shayne's fault! Pesky little ferret changed the sport, he did.
And we all went Woo Hoo this is great! Well?????????????????????????????? hows it working out? Nobody saw this comming?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> It sounds like the amateurs who run and financially support hunt tests have lost control of their sport to professional trainers who depend on amateurs for their livelihood.
> 
> Tail Wagging The Dog Regards


, ,

I agree, watched at least a dozen "owners" last weekend come forward to collect the ribbon there dog and "pro" earned for them, and can't recall any of them stepping forward to help out either, guess it's more fun to sit in a chair and watch your dog and collect a ribbon at the end of the day than participate, I can see if you want your dog to run the MN and you don't have the time or finances to do it your self then fine send the dog with someone to run it but the weekend hunt tests are a different story, run the dog yourself...


----------



## bmack0423 (Sep 14, 2012)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Think I will play elsewhere until AKC gets this straightened out.
> 
> Lonnie Spann


Lonnie, you are welcome in any test I am associated with!!!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> if everyone had to snail mail the check and enter old school and we did the random draw out of a salad bowl on the test secs kitchen table none of this would be an issue. This is all Shayne's fault! Pesky little ferret changed the sport, he did.
> And we all went Woo Hoo this is great! Well?????????????????????????????? hows it working out? Nobody saw this comming?


Good point....


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

So if there's a Master HT that is limited to 90 dogs and there are 120 dogs that want to run, there will be 30 who are SOL, right?

How do any of the "solutions" offered remedy that situation? Limit number of dogs per handler, eliminate pros, eliminate EE,. etc ... there will still be 30 dogs that get shut out.

Just a matter of which ones.

JS


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I've spent an hour reading and my own two-dog self is thinking, this is really, really bad. I didn't see this coming. I am a little bit afraid I might have voted for it somehow? Seemed like a good idea at the time... 

Trying to think of solutions:

* OWNER must enter, not handler (nor handler's assistant--hard to monitor--but 20 entries coming from the same IP might be a tip-off to abusers?)
* Date and time of opening for entries must be published at least (one month?) in advance.
* Wait list, in order of entry.
* Scratches for injury, death, and in-season only; must be sent by the vet to EE and refund must come through Ee.

That's all I've got.

Technology is convenient when it doesn't screw everything up.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Handler Error said:


> Not if you cannot get entered.
> How does a test finalize and 50 minutes later the 90 dog limit is reached? HMMMMM


Just curious. How is it that you know the precise minute that the entries opened, and closed, but were not able to enter?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> It's a good idea in theory but, many people (myself included) really like to enter their local events. And if those happen to be MN clubs with limited entries and you find yourself in a situation like the OP described, it's kind of a slap in the face (and wallet) to find another test that might be an 8 - 10 hr. drive away, MN member or not, just to run your dog, because certain people had insider info. on date/time an event opened that you weren't privy to.


I agree...if someone gets preferential treatment because they had knowledge that the rest of us didn't....THAT'S WRONG!!!!


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

EdA said:


> It sounds like the amateurs who run and financially support hunt tests have lost control of their sport to professional trainers who depend on amateurs for their livelihood.
> 
> Tail Wagging The Dog Regards


Sorry to disagree!!! Don't blame the pros...it's not their fault!!! Let's fix the system. Are limits the answer? Maybe so...maybe not! Limits are not the solution! Finding a way to include everyone is!!!!


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Todd Caswell said:


> , ,
> 
> I agree, watched at least a dozen "owners" last weekend come forward to collect the ribbon there dog and "pro" earned for them, and can't recall any of them stepping forward to help out either, guess it's more fun to sit in a chair and watch your dog and collect a ribbon at the end of the day than participate, I can see if you want your dog to run the MN and you don't have the time or finances to do it your self then fine send the dog with someone to run it but the weekend hunt tests are a different story, run the dog yourself...


I haven't seen a single HT where the "PRO" earned a GD thing!!!! The dog did it! Let's cut the pros out all together! For that matter, let's make a rule that ONLY members of the RC can enter! If a pro shouldn't be allowed to run, then some yank-dick from another club who doesn't help out shouldn't either!!!

This thread is getting "Wizard of OZ" CRAZY!!!!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Spag said:


> I haven't seen a single HT where the "PRO" earned a GD thing!!!! The dog did it! Let's cut the pros out all together! For that matter, let's make a rule that ONLY members of the RC can enter! If a pro shouldn't be allowed to run, then some yank-dick from another club who doesn't help out shouldn't either!!!
> 
> This thread is getting "Wizard of OZ" CRAZY!!!!


Last I checked you need both a handler and a dog on the line, to participate and succeed, not sure what HT you have been watching but in most cases it's a team sport whether it be a pro handled dog or a AM handled dog, in my eyes both handler and dog earn the ribbon... If you go back and read almost all post including mine you will find tha the pro is not the problem it's the system, and part of the bad in the system is owners letting there pro run a dog in a while they watch...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Good Dogs said:


> Just curious. How is it that you know the precise minute that the entries opened, and closed, but were not able to enter?


Exactly. As Helen described above it post/opens when it is approved and finalized and that depends on the HT Secretary and when they sit down and do it. It could be 9am or it could be 1130pm. Nobody knows when other than the secretary when entries will open, unless someone is suggesting a conspiracy between the "Pro's" and the HT Secretary. 
This one of if not the dumbest ever posted n RTF. 
I am starting to think the summertime has gotten people in a fishing mood. Lines are out, baits are swimming


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> if everyone had to snail mail the check and enter old school and we did the random draw out of a salad bowl on the test secs kitchen table none of this would be an issue. This is all Shayne's fault! Pesky little ferret changed the sport, he did.
> And we all went Woo Hoo this is great! Well?????????????????????????????? hows it working out? Nobody saw this comming?


EE could do this. If the entries are limited let anyone wanting a shot at running enter. Then draw the running order until the max numbers is reached.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Exactly. As Helen described above it post/opens when it is approved and finalized and that depends on the HT Secretary and when they sit down and do it. It could be 9am or it could be 1130pm. Nobody knows when other than the secretary when entries will open, unless someone is suggesting a conspiracy between the "Pro's" and the HT Secretary.
> This one of if not the dumbest ever posted n RTF.
> I am starting to think the summertime has gotten people in a fishing mood. Lines are out, baits are swimming





If it didn't happen in this instance, it sure will now! (Choke chains are not..... And forward progress must be made to the...)


edit to add--_this has absolutely nothing to pro's, really... Whether 2 pro's have the heads up and enter 30 dogs each, or 30 am's have the head's up and enter 2 dogs each, the guy that checks if it's open with a donut in one hand and finds he's shut out with his pbj in that same hand 4 hours later is still shut out.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

JS said:


> You're gonna run out of playgrounds before long!
> 
> JS


Yes, got it whittled down to derbies and HRC weekend HT ;-)

Lonnie Spann


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Spag said:


> Sorry to disagree!!! Don't blame the pros...it's not their fault!!! Let's fix the system. Are limits the answer? Maybe so...maybe not! Limits are not the solution! Finding a way to include everyone is!!!!


The issue isn't limited entries. You can't make a club grow more grounds or have more workers and volunteers. The issue is the influx of entries ahead of the MN in a particular part of the country each year. Limits allow a club to be more predictable in what they can host. It is, after all, a club that holds a test...not an AKC conglomerate company. 

I don't know if abolishing the 200 mile limit on test date conflict would help or not, it might. But that would only work for clubs willing to add an additional test each year, if they could.

The problem is a limited one each year. It's not the clubs, the HT secretary, or the Pro's. It's the spike created by the MN. 

Per my earlier post, through the next 2 months 2/3rds of all Master Tests are still wide open from entry.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I haven't seen a single HT where the "PRO" earned a GD thing!!!! The dog did it! Let's cut the pros out all together! For that matter, let's make a rule that ONLY members of the RC can enter! If a pro shouldn't be allowed to run, then some yank-dick from another club who doesn't help out shouldn't either!!!


I think you found the cure. If you don't work ,,,,,you don't play. That should cut the field down considerably. And I think because the amatuer dog enthusiest is making the pro work weekends,,,, ,,that should be punishment enough. The pro with all those dogs is already working his arsky off. :razz:

Pete


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pete said:


> I think you found the cure. If you don't work ,,,,,you don't play. That should cut the field down considerably. And I think because the amatuer dog enthusiest is making the pro work weekends,,,, ,,that should be punishment enough.
> 
> Pete


That would also cure the club of any chance of making money on a test.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> That would also cure the club of any chance of making money on a test


Ah,,which brings us back to the more the merrier concept. Which means AKC should change the rule on 60 entries being a magic number. When the count reaches 60 ,,and the scratches equal 20 the AKC still makes you split. There lies a major problem. I think clubs should have the latitude to make what they get operate smoothly. There are two many rules set in stone that throw sand in the gears when unusual circumstances arise. No different than our government really. Lets make a law mentality. I'm really starting to feel the effects of being a middle age,bald and fat american white guy. (. 



Pete


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pete said:


> Ah,,which brings us back to the more the merrier concept. Which means AKC should change the rule on 60 entries being a magic number. When the count reaches 60 ,,and the scratches equal 20 the AKC still makes you split. There lies a major problem. I think clubs should have the latitude to make what they get operate smoothly. There are two many rules set in stone that throw sand in the gears when unusual circumstances arise. No different than our government really. Lets make a law mentality. I'm really starting to feel the effects of being a middle age,bald and fat american white guy. (.
> 
> Pete


There's definitely work that can be done on scratches. Only was I can see to fix it is change the penalty. As a test chair the last thing I need is a split 10 days before a test date because I'm 3 dogs over 60 or 90, depending on 2 or 3 day event. Either way - the issue is the MN, certain regions, once a year.


----------



## Handler in Training (Jun 18, 2013)

badbullgator said:


> Exactly. As Helen described above it post/opens when it is approved and finalized and that depends on the HT Secretary and when they sit down and do it. It could be 9am or it could be 1130pm. Nobody knows when other than the secretary when entries will open, unless someone is suggesting a conspiracy between the "Pro's" and the HT Secretary.
> This one of if not the dumbest ever posted n RTF.
> I am starting to think the summertime has gotten people in a fishing mood. Lines are out, baits are swimming


Just talk to members of the club that didn't get in as well. Not too hard to believe that they were a little upset and contacted their other club members and figured out when the test got finalized.

Plus, lets take out everything that I don't know as complete fact personally....I checked at 8:30am and the test was not finalized. I checked again at 5:00pm and the test was full. It is pretty hard for me to imagine any way that a pro could have had the time to sit on their computer between these times unless they knew that they needed to be. I had been checking EE every day at approximately these times for two weeks. Were these other people sitting in front of their computer every day for 2 weeks all day long? Not likely. They had information that Joe Dog Trainer and myself did not. Puts a pretty sour taste in a guy's mouth. Gonna make it pretty hard to recruit and keep new people in this game if the newbies and amateurs don't even have the opportunity to play. They might have well called it the *Missouri Valley Hunt Club Summer Invitational*.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I can understand why someone might need/want a pro to train their dogs in any venue.
What is the point in them running your dog in a hunt test?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

So how many flights did this club have last year and ow many dogs were entered?

edit: according to EE this club had 146 master entries last year and decided to limit the entries to 90 this year. Obviously, if all run again this year 56 dogs are not going to get in. One in three dogs that ran last year will not get to this year. It looks like about the same amount of pros last year. Sadly for you the pros have the advantage of checking online throughout the day on phones or iPads as it is part of their job. I would bet they have all their dogs ready to be entered on open pages and all they have to do is wait till it opens and hit the button. 

Hate to say it because I know it is a burden for some clubs to hold two flights, but when you chose to limit numbers someone is going to get butt hurt. This is a good example of just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should. Looks like they were able to run 146 master dogs last year. Maybe they should have bit the bullet and not limited the numbers.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Todd Caswell said:


> Last I checked you need both a handler and a dog on the line, to participate and succeed, not sure what HT you have been watching but in most cases it's a team sport whether it be a pro handled dog or a AM handled dog, in my eyes both handler and dog earn the ribbon... If you go back and read almost all post including mine you will find tha the pro is not the problem it's the system, and part of the bad in the system is owners letting there pro run a dog in a while they watch...


You are correct. It IS most definitely a team sport. I mis-read your post and read "pro" earned for them rather than "dog and pro"...sorry! I still take issue with you on your insistence that I shouldn't be able to participate. There are several issues that limit my participation to sitting in a chair and watching. I think your insistence that I be excluded is a little narrow-minded and we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

red devil said:


> Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


For some people it is not about the title they earn, it is about time. Many folks want a great hnting dog and simply don't have the time or know how to do it themselves. These folks often send dogs to pro's and the the pro's suggest that they run HT as part of their training. Others already have a MH but want to run the MN and again time becomes a factor for many. If the "season" in Florida ends in May and you have not qualified you will have to go a long way (12 hours+) to get the qualifications you need to enter the MN. Many people can't afford to take Friday and Monday off work to travel to a test. The cost involved with that exceeds the cost of putting your dog with a pro to get the last qualifications. 
There are also some folks that are physically unable to train or handle their dogs in HT. 
I have never done this, but I know many very capable trainers who do. Guess who walks to the line with the dog at the MN?


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

red devil said:


> Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


I guess whether or not I earned it myself if probably best saved for another thread, however, the short answer is the pride in knowing you did everything you could to develop a dog's talent. I have no aspirations for myself as a world class handler...it won't/can't happen...and I don't want the dog's talent to be minimized by a bad handler. I enjoy participating to the degree that I'm capable...that pretty much relegates me to the chair. I LOVE watching the dogs and the people whom I've met sitting in my little chair.


----------



## grnhd (Jan 4, 2013)

If you're a member of this club and your event filled up in 50 minutes with mostly pro dogs,that appears to have had a heads up that it was open for entries , how many of you would help in the event? If there is no help, how successful will this club be in the future with events? To me,you've got to let the people that run the event run their dogs above any one else. If they cant run their dogs,they'll quit,I think its that simple. JMHO.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Here is something that Ed Aycock and I proposed for use in Field Trials that might be adapted to address the concerns expressed in this post

Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open 


In the Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open (the “Stake”), entries shall be limited to 65 dogs - or a slightly higher number, if necessary, as described below.


In the Stake, each handler shall designate in numerical order those dogs which the handler wishes to enter in the Stake. Entries 1-5 shall be guaranteed admission into the Stake - whether or not total entries equal or exceed 65 dogs.


If, upon the close of entries, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 5 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 6 into the Stake. If after all such dogs have be admitted into the Stake, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are still admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 6 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 7 into the Stake. This process shall continue until the Field Trial Secretary first determines that entries in the Stake are 65 dogs or more. 


Consider the following examples


A.	The Field Trial Secretary determines upon the close of entries, that if all handlers are permitted to run the dogs that they have designated, including 5 dogs per handler for those handlers who have designated five or more dogs, that 75 dogs would be admitted in the Stake - then the Stake would proceed with 75 dogs, and handlers with more than 5 dogs designated would not be permitted to enter any further dogs in the Stake.


B.	The same situation, only the FTS determines that total entries, when handlers are permitted to enter 5 dogs into the Stake, are 64. Because total entries are less than 65, each handler who has previously designated a sixth dog for potential admission into the stake shall be permitted to enter that sixth dog in the stake. This is true even if the admission of each sixth dog designated by handlers with more than five dogs would result in the Stake having 80 dogs entered. All handlers who had six dogs designated for entry in the Stake would be permitted to enter the dogs that the handlers had previously designated as 1-6 in the stake.


In the event that a dog is scratched for veterinary reasons, if applicable, the handler with multiple dogs may then substitute the next designated dog for inclusion in the Stake. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 7 dogs. Handler X has designated 18 for potential inclusion in the Stake. Handler X’s entry number 6 has come in season. Handler X will be permitted to enter his previously identified dog no. 8 in the trial. However, he will not be permitted to enter dog no. 9 in place of the scratched dog.


----------



## Robert (Feb 28, 2006)

50 min, 30 min, 15 min fill ups all happened recently. I heard of some handlers hitting the submit button, as entries flooded in, only to be turned away. Just to many entries coming into the system to get your one dog into the line-up. I personally was in a bad place geographically to get notice the events had been opened up. When I did get notice two hours later and checked - all the tests were full.

I OVER HEATED!

First, I started simmering at the pros (some are friends and yes people it's not their fault)

Second, I started boiling at whomever let the cat out of the bag to the pros. The pro and amateur club is a partnership of sorts that keeps this game viable. I wasn't right to be mad here either - I think 

Third, I blew up being fellow amateur's like myself put on "these" tests. I was ready to toss nearly 10-years of friendships and helping at these events out the door. I sure the heck wasn't going to throw or launch one more duck if club members couldn't play - I will not if this sort of system continues. It makes no sense for me to volunteer to set-up, throw ducks, travel or tear down if I can't play at my own club. 

I've cooled off by now but we need to be having some constructive discussions on how to level the playing field. 

I do feel club members should have a window of opportunity before all else though...

Robert


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...=1#post1122985
> A system ensuring that anyone who wishes to run one dog is able to do so, before anyone gets to run multiple dogs is as close as it gets....


With this system , unless there are 61 or more single dog entries, all those who wish to run (a) their dog in the event get to do so, before anyone gets to run more than one dog.....john


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Your club could always do the old mail in and random draw.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

grnhd said:


> If your a member of this club and your event filled up in 50 minutes with mostly pro dogs,that appears to have had a heads up that it was open for entries , how many of you would help in the event?


I would help, and I would imagine that the rest of the folks in my club who work events would help. In fact, I typically don't enter my dogs in our hunt tests unless we need the entries so I can concentrate on what needs to be done. The way I see it is that we put on our events primarily to raise $ for the club, so we can afford things like training days, club trials etc., and also to host other folks in the region to an event to reciprocate for their holding events for me to run.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

Lots of solutions, probably all have their downsides/unintended consequences. Here's another one:

Have a Master A and a Master B stake, similar to the A/B system in Obedience or the Excellent/Master system in Agility. Master A is for dogs that do not yet have an MH. Master B is for dogs that already have an MH. In one of the tests that filled fast, I counted about 38 dogs that had MH in their name, and I would guess that many of the others also had an MH, but it hadn't been added to the Entry Express name yet.

Could work a couple ways from there. Master A and B could be the same stakes, same judges, run together, with Master A dogs getting priority for entries or Master B could be a separate, more challenging test.

For the Master B dogs, add another $10 or $15 or $20 to the entry fee over Master A. 60 dogs in Master B would be another $600 (or $900 or $1,200) to pay for workers or judges. (I realize that grounds and time could be a problem that can't be solved by raising the entry fees for Master B; in that case, a limit on entries would be needed.) No canceling of entries allowed in Master B, except major medical. I think, by then, you should have a fairly good idea of when your girl will come into heat and, if not, well, them's the breaks running girls. 

Another point. Apparently, the fast-closing entries are in the vicinity of the upcoming Master National. I think that problem is created by the MN being the only hunt test title above MH. Create additional titles and I think entries would increase overall and even out across the country. Similar to Agility and Obedience, you could have an MHX (ten qualifying MH runs after achieving the title), MHX2 (20 post-title qualifying runs), etc.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

red devil said:


> Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


Nobody trained or ran my first dog except myself. One exception when Susan Young and Jim Person ran her while I judged a different stake and it made for a funny (I thought) story. Training (despite a lot of mistakes) and running HTs was about her and I. I wouldn't have traded piling everything into the Jeep and driving down the road to the next test for anything. She always knew where we were headed and that she was going to get her birds. If I took the shotgun out the night before, she knew we were going hunting and she would sleep against the front door all night because no way was she going to be left behind. I loved and miss that dog, but am grateful for her taking me to all the places she did.

As to your comment-a lot of dogs you see at HTs being handled by their owners had help from pros that may or may not ever be acknowledged. My current dog had his basics done later in his life at 17 months. He was with a pro for 5 months for that. He was with another pro for 2 months a couple years ago when I couldn't run or train him myself. Right now, for personal reasons, I can't train for a bit. I agonized, but decided he'd probably be happier getting some birds than sitting on the couch and going for walks. Next week he'll run a HT and I hate the fact that I won't be getting up early with him and driving to a test together, as well as the adrenaline rush you get when you go to line. The glowing pride when he gets it right and even the disappointment when sometimes you have to wonder how you should have approached things and helped him out better. You get none of that in a phone call, but I'm grateful to have someone run him who will do their absolute best to get 110% out of my dog. I'll run him in my local test at the end of the month and I can't wait to have him back.

**As an aside-my dog goes EVERYWHERE with me. He is even allowed in one of the local stores and carries a grocery bag home when he goes. Since he's been gone I have had people I don't even know stopping me on the street constantly asking where he is. The other day I was walking down a street we often walk and some man (assuming I MUST have my dog) yelled (not common in that neighborhood) out his window, "Put that dog on a leash!". 

M


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Saw this all coming when they announced they were going to be limiting entries. Some clubs here in Texas had tests that well over 100 Master entries on a regular basis. All the sudden those same clubs go to 60-90 entries...One of my dogs is now with a field trial pro and my 9 year old master dog is semi-retired hunting and just running ukc stuff when Time permits. But this may have been what the AKC politicians wanted to happen. Too many Master National entries. Also with less tests being run, won't that decrease the number of judges needed?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

JamesTannery said:


> Saw this all coming when they announced they were going to be limiting entries. Some clubs here in Texas had tests that well over 100 Master entries on a regular basis. All the sudden those same clubs go to 60-90 entries...One of my dogs is now with a field trial pro and my 9 year old master dog is semi-retired hunting and just running ukc stuff when Time permits. But this may have been what the AKC politicians wanted to happen. Too many Master National entries. Also with less tests being run, won't that decrease the number of judges needed?


What I don't get is that these clubs did manage to put on multiple flights last year. While I understand the difficulties associated with multiple flights I am at a loss to understand how they could manage to run all comers last year and this year they can't.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The whole thing sounds like a hassle... Who needs all that? Too many other things to do.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> What I don't get is that these clubs did manage to put on multiple flights last year. While I understand the difficulties associated with multiple flights I am at a loss to understand how they could manage to run all comers last year and this year they can't.


I would think the more dogs, the more money in the clubs bank account...Good thing, right? More money for club training days, grounds, equipment, etc.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

JamesTannery said:


> Saw this all coming when they announced they were going to be limiting entries. Some clubs here in Texas had tests that well over 100 Master entries on a regular basis. All the sudden those same clubs go to 60-90 entries...One of my dogs is now with a field trial pro and my 9 year old master dog is semi-retired hunting and just running ukc stuff when Time permits. But this may have been what the AKC politicians wanted to happen. Too many Master National entries. Also with less tests being run, won't that decrease the number of judges needed?


2 day master tests split at 60 and 3 day tests split at 90. 100 dog entries would mean another test, 2 more judges, workers, grounds, etc. 

It's obvious in this thread how many have never chaired a test.

This close to MN in this region - it would be likely club tests would be forced to splits they couldn't possibly accommodate.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

JamesTannery said:


> I would think the more dogs, the more money in the clubs bank account...Good thing, right? More money for club training days, grounds, equipment, etc.


That is the way our club feels. Would we rather have a single master? Sure, but 60 more dogs at $75/each is an extra $4500 in revenue. Yes it is a lot more work, but the real expenses are not that much. We figure $400 per judge so $800 and another $600-800 for birds and $500 for paid help for that flight. We are looking at about $2100-2400 in "extra" cost and bring in $4500 leaving a nice profit for the club. Win win. The club is happy, members run their dogs, pros run their dogs and all the club members go home worn out. If you are not worn out after hosting a HT you are not doing it right regardless of the number of flights. I know when I go to my clubs test I am going to work my ass off and don't expect to spend much time sitting around the gallery. Much like hosting a party at your home, to are going t do more work than relaxing. 
Granted some clubs just don't have the grounds, but like I said if they managed last year what is the difference this year? We have somewhat limited water and sometimes one flight may have to wait for another to finish, but we always get it done in time for everyone to get home Sunday (well one exception, but that was poor time management by the judges, never a good idea to run a series that takes 20 mins per dog n a Sunday afternoon.).


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

HNTFSH said:


> 2 day master tests split at 60 and 3 day tests split at 90. 100 dog entries would mean another test, 2 more judges, workers, grounds, etc.
> 
> It's obvious in this thread how many have never chaired a test.
> 
> This close to MN in this region - it would be likely club tests would be forced to splits they couldn't possibly accommodate.


You're right, never chaired a test, just thrown birds,carried and set up equipment, marshalled and ran some. Clubs managed before the limits and did alright.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> That is the way our club feels. Would we rather have a single master? Sure, but 60 more dogs at $75/each is an extra $4500 in revenue. Yes it is a lot more work, but the real expenses are not that much. We figure $400 per judge so $800 and another $600-800 for birds and $500 for paid help for that flight. We are looking at about $2100-2400 in "extra" cost and bring in $4500 leaving a nice profit for the club. Win win. The club is happy, members run their dogs, pros run their dogs and all the club members go home worn out. If you are not worn out after hosting a HT you are not doing it right regardless of the number of flights. I know when I go to my clubs test I am going to work my ass off and don't expect to spend much time sitting around the gallery. Much like hosting a party at your home, to are going t do more work than relaxing.
> Granted some clubs just don't have the grounds, but like I said if they managed last year what is the difference this year? We have somewhat limited water and sometimes one flight may have to wait for another to finish, but we always get it done in time for everyone to get home Sunday (well one exception, but that was poor time management by the judges, never a good idea to run a series that takes 20 mins per dog n a Sunday afternoon.).


More dogs doesn't always mean higher profit. or profit, per additional. There is a 'right amount' of dogs per grounds, help, judge cost, banquet facility and raffle.

That said - if i was in that region and as a club had the grounds, wanted to put $$ in the bank, and could manage the resources - it is an ideal opportunity for a 3 day double master either allowing a spit or at minimum, 2 90 dog tests. Or a 3 day master allowing splits and a 2 day with a 60 dog limited entry.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

JamesTannery said:


> You're right, never chaired a test, just thrown birds,carried and set up equipment, marshalled and ran some. Clubs managed before the limits and did alright.


I'm sure plenty of club workers not on the HT committee or chairing the test think that.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

HNTFSH said:


> I'm sure plenty of club workers not on the HT committee or chairing the test think that.


Maybe. Maybe not. You must have chaired a lot of clubs hunt tests.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

HNTFSH said:


> More dogs doesn't always mean higher profit. or profit, per additional. There is a 'right amount' of dogs per grounds, help, judge cost, banquet facility and raffle.
> 
> That said - if i was in that region and as a club had the grounds, wanted to put $$ in the bank, and could manage the resources - it is an ideal opportunity for a 3 day double master either allowing a spit or at minimum, 2 90 dog tests. Or a 3 day master allowing splits and a 2 day with a 60 dog limited entry.



Sure. Having 65 dogs doesn't help and will probably end up costing more than you make. I was going from the example I used above with the MO club that has a 90 limit vs 150 dogs entered last year. I am sure every club has fallen into that grey area were they have just over the split number and end up loosing money by having 5-10 dogs over the split. 
I suggest if your club is close to having to split at a low number of "extra" dogs that members get on the phone and find a pro to bring his truck down. We have offered incentives like paying part or all of their hotel to fill up the second flight enough to make money. Nobody said it is easy.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> that members get on the phone and find a pro to bring his truck down. We have offered incentives like paying part or all of their hotel to fill up the second flight enough to make money.


Is paying for part or all of a pro's hotel bill allowable per AKC ? Sounds like it would be illegal (or at least inappropriate) to me.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

helencalif said:


> Is paying for part or all of a pro's hotel bill allowable per AKC ? Sounds like it would be illegal (or at least inappropriate) to me.


I have no idea what club BBG was referring to but the payment of any inducement is against the regs and is grounds for disciplinary action by the AKC. 

As follows:

"No Special Inducements. A hunt test-giving club 
which accepts an entry fee other than that published in its 
premium list or entry form, or in any way discriminates 
between entrants, shall be disciplined. No club or member 
of any club shall give or offer to give any owner or handler 
any special inducements, such as reduced entry fees, 
allowances for board or transportation or other incentive 
of value for a certain number of entries or shall give or 
offer to give in consideration of entering a certain number 
of dogs, any prizes or prize money, except the officially 
advertised prizes or prize money, which prize money shall 
be for a stated sum or a portion of the entry fees. Except a 
club, at its discretion, may allow for a reduced entry fee for 
dogs handled by juniors. A junior handler is someone less 
than 18 years of age on the first day of the test."


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

JamesTannery said:


> But this may have been what the AKC politicians wanted to happen.


The limits were proposed by several clubs to the HTRAC who forwarded the reccomendation on to AKC for approval. There was communication from the HTRAC to all clubs (at least all MNRC clubs) regarding the proposal and they solicited input from the clubs before acting. I can assure you the limits were not "what the AKC politicians wanted."


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> I can assure you the limits were not "what the AKC politicians wanted."


Who are "the AKC politicians"?


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> I would help, and I would imagine that the rest of the folks in my club who work events would help. In fact, I typically don't enter my dogs in our hunt tests unless we need the entries so I can concentrate on what needs to be done. The way I see it is that we put on our events primarily to raise $ for the club, so we can afford things like training days, club trials etc., and also to host other folks in the region to an event to reciprocate for their holding events for me to run.


How do most people feel about working an event that is put on by a club they are not a member of? I see some people who pitch in no matter whose club is hosting. Then you see the same people who wouldn't lift a finger. What's the general consensus? Do you feel that you paid your $ and therefore it's not your responsibility to work or do you feel a sense of wanting to pitch in and be a part of the test? I am talking about HTs and not FTs, but again have seen folks pitch in there too.

I'm more apt to work if I know I'll be respected in the process and not left out in the field with no concern for my dog's needs and getting ready to run. Love the folks who pay attention and say if you could just work for 10 dogs we would really appreciate it and then don't forget about you!

The other piece of this from the original poster's point of view is that it's a bit discouraging to not even be able to run your own club's event or one in close proximity. The pro has to make his/her living and they are not to blame, but somehow the average owner/trainer who spends what spare time they can training and has to run when the tests are in their area needs a sense of security that he is going to be able to get the title they've trained for.

If manpower is the issue than maybe if more folks stepped up to help out clubs wouldn't feel as much of a need to limit entries.

M


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> Who are "the AKC politicians"?


And you wondered how you were going to entertain yourself after the Zimmerman trial was over. 

JS


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I can speak for only one No. CA club who decided to limit entries. Our grounds are limited. We can run two master flights and no more which is why we limited both flights to 60 dogs each (max entries 120). We also run double Senior and Junior tests -- one each on Sat and one each on Sunday swopping judges. 

It has been suggested that since the MN will be held in CA next year, that we drop doing the double Sr. and Jr. and put on a 3rd flight of masters. We are thinking about that suggestion, but ... the grounds used for the Seniors and Juniors may not be best for a third master. Lots of cogitating needed to change to 3 master flights. Do-able, but maybe not ideal. Plus, we have not experienced HUGE master entries. Maybe next year we will.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Handler in Training said:


> Plus, lets take out everything that I don't know as complete fact personally....I checked at 8:30am and the test was not finalized. I checked again at 5:00pm and the test was full. It is pretty hard for me to imagine any way that a pro could have had the time to sit on their computer between these times unless they knew that they needed to be. I had been checking EE every day at approximately these times for two weeks. Were these other people sitting in front of their computer every day for 2 weeks all day long? Not likely. They had information that Joe Dog Trainer and myself did not. Puts a pretty sour taste in a guy's mouth. Gonna make it pretty hard to recruit and keep new people in this game if the newbies and amateurs don't even have the opportunity to play. They might have well called it the *Missouri Valley Hunt Club Summer Invitational*.


So we have no verification that the tests in question closed in 50 minutes, but sometime between 0830 and 1700 your time zone? 
As to "sitting in front of a computer" all day every day, out east here we have these things called "smart-phones" and "i-pads" and such. Makes it easy to stay in contact with important stuff. And if a handler - pro or not - has all of his/her dogs listed on EE it's 1 click per dog to enter. So entering 10 dogs might take a second longer than a single dog. 
Sorry you did not get to enter the test you wanted to but not every chance occurrence is the result of some nefarious conspiracy. Maybe next time you could volunteer to be HT Sec'y. Then you'd have no trouble entering on time.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

EdA said:


> Who are "the AKC politicians"?


I meant to ask that meself.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> So we have no verification that the tests in question closed in 50 minutes, but sometime between 0830 and 1700 your time zone?
> As to "sitting in front of a computer" all day every day, out east here we have these things called "smart-phones" and "i-pads" and such. Makes it easy to stay in contact with important stuff. And if a handler - pro or not - has all of his/her dogs listed on EE it's 1 click per dog to enter. So entering 10 dogs might take a second longer than a single dog.
> Sorry you did not get to enter the test you wanted to but not every chance occurrence is the result of some nefarious conspiracy. Maybe next time you could volunteer to be HT Sec'y. Then you'd have no trouble entering on time.


It is easier to believe the club got caught off-guard than the club Secretary thought screwing its own members for two pro trucks was a good idea.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> Who are "the AKC politicians"?


Maybe poor choice of wording on my part but this was just an excerpt from the post. What I was referring to was limited entries in the weekend hunt test would mean less dogs qualifying for the Master Nationals, and wasn't that the reason the proposal came from the clubs that are master national members?


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

red devil said:


> Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


Or any other title for that matter?

Lonnie Spann


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

JamesTannery said:


> Maybe poor choice of wording on my part but this was just an excerpt from the post. What I was referring to was limited entries in the weekend hunt test would mean less dogs qualifying for the Master Nationals, and wasn't that the reason the proposal came from the clubs that are master national members?


I know little of Hunt Tests and I am not qualified to make an intelligent comment about the political side but my 40 years in field trials give me a perspective on the issues the Hunt Test community faces, i.e. more dogs handled by professional trainers and fewer participating and /or involved owners. The trend in field trials is at least 2 decades old and we have yet to find a solution even though many seem to recognize the problem. When an event is held and the people who put on the event cannot enter their dogs a problem of near monumental proportions exists. Good luck with finding a solution, the problem will not get better it will only get worse.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I have an entry in the test that closed so quick for a small fee of $150 I will tell you the exact moment I will scratch so you can enter your dog....JUST KIDDING!!
Before you jump on the Pro Secretary conspiracy theory.... A pro with 20 dogs entered might have 20 people watching entry express to see when a test opens. If I had a dog with a pro and an upcoming test in a MN area I might well be watching very closely when a test opens and tell my Pro. Knowing the Secretary also helps, not because they will tell me but because I knw when the work and when they are likely to be setting up the test on EE and opening it. 
One final thought... since demand has out grown supply now would be a great time for certain clubs to add $10 or $20 or $30 to their entry fees. This is the other way to control the number of entries and you might be able to hire workers for the test to make it run smoother.
This also might be a good time for new clubs to be formed in regions where a spike in entries is expected...


----------



## CRNAret (Oct 3, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> I would help, and I would imagine that the rest of the folks in my club who work events would help. In fact, I typically don't enter my dogs in our hunt tests unless we need the entries so I can concentrate on what needs to be done. The way I see it is that we put on our events primarily to raise $ for the club, so we can afford things like training days, club trials etc., and also to host other folks in the region to an event to reciprocate for their holding events for me to run.


This is true sportsmanship. Thanks for commenting.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

helencalif said:


> Is paying for part or all of a pro's hotel bill allowable per AKC ? Sounds like it would be illegal (or at least inappropriate) to me.



Ok, good idea but not allowable. My mistake and I should have known that. I am reminded that we have not done that. We have paid pros to deliver birds from GA since getting birds in Florida is difficult. That has been gas and hotel. Not an incentive to run the test, incentive to bring us birds.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> One final thought... since demand has out grown supply now would be a great time for certain clubs to add $10 or $20 or $30 to their entry fees. This is the other way to control the number of entries ...


It does not matter what the entry fees are, professional trainers do not make decisions based on entry fees, owners receive a bill each month and entry fees are not a deal breaker. The club would surely make more money but the entry would not be impacted at all.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

I think that would be more likely to impact the AM entry.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Or any other title for that matter?
> 
> Lonnie Spann


Now is the issue the pros in this MH venue are getting all the spots? and it is hard for Am. to get their dogs in? An easy answer IMO b/c I am still not sure I see the problem is to run the dog yourself. This to me is more rewarding whether you pass or fail. IMHO Does not mean you can't hire the pro to help you along your journey! IMO


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

How many owners do you see riding their horse in the Kentucky Derby? 

JS


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

JS said:


> How many owners do you see riding their horse in the Kentucky Derby?
> 
> JS


How many have the physical attributes to allow them to jockey a horse? Not really apples to oranges there.


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

I just want to say that this just baffles me. In my neck of the woods we just hope for enough entries to not go broke. In the entire region I am in I have only seen a master go over 60 and have to be split 1 time. what a difference a few miles can make.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

MikeBoley said:


> How many have the physical attributes to allow them to jockey a horse? Not really apples to oranges there.


Ya, just being a little facetious there. I don't think it would be much fun having someone else do it for me either. Just saying , to each, their own. Lots of reasons someone might use a pro.

This whole thread is about pot stirrin'

JS


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

JS said:


> Ya, just being a little facetious there. I don't think it would be much fun having someone else do it for me either. Just saying , to each, their own. Lots of reasons someone might use a pro.[\QUOTE]
> 
> If you are new, you would use a pro to teach you more than the dog. Otherwise, you either have (i) Joe Blow setting up his car, building the engine, and running it at the Talladega NASCAR race, or (ii) having Jimmie Johnson's crew build a car and then hand it to Joe Blow to run in the race. Neither probably ends well.
> 
> You still have at least a little of (ii) until you get some experience as a handler, but it's better than (i).


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

red devil said:


> Just out of curiosity.... what, exactly is the attraction of a HT title you didn't earn yourself?


I would say that depends heavily on what you mean when by "earn yourself." Do you specifically mean running them in the tests or is it broader than that?

If it is running, I would love to be able to run my dog every time, and I have been lucky enough to do it so far. However, in my profession, if I am not in my chair I am very likely not making money. Also, sometimes my job is like pouring concrete in that it works you instead of you working it, and you have to work it while it is wet. I will undoubtedly have a time or two while trying to get an MH title that I will have to get a pro to run him.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

The issue is that we live in a finite world. Apparently on Spag's planet there is always room for more people that bring nothing, add nothing and leave before the bill comes due. In actual fact MANY of the clubs are basically a handful of people that are still willing (for reasons known only to the maker) to volunteer their resources to ensure that the game can continue. We are in critically short supply of those folks and after a whole bunch of years the fun is about to run out. So how do we deal with this? Limits are not the best answer but it is a way for the club to ensure that they aren't overwhelmed by a couple of folks that bring nothing but an appetite, and leave noting but a lingering trail of dust. We live in fear of the 62 dog entry (that inevitably scratches back to 58) but in the meantime means that we are scrambling to find the resources to split knowing full well that we are going to lose money in the process. So someone's ox is going to get gored- why on earth would any rational person NOT expect that to be the parasites?

If you think that your entry fee is sufficient contribution- stay the #^&* home!!!! Sitting around on your keister proclaiming that you would love to help but _____________ is just BS there are PLENTY of ways to help regardless of physical capabilities. It really doesn't matter what a person does for a living- including training dogs there are LOTS of ways to help out. 
I'm in complete agreement with Todd- how much fun could it be to watch someone else run your dog?? 
Reminds me of the old joke where the kids Mom told him to ring the doorbell with his elbow cause she just knew his hands would be full. 

If you don't contribute your fair share you ain't welcome regards

Bubba

Rant mode over- It's my birthday and I'm off to finish that bottle of Miss Emma that Ida sent home.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Bubba said:


> The issue is that we live in a finite world. Apparently on Spag's planet there is always room for more people that bring nothing, add nothing and leave before the bill comes due. In actual fact MANY of the clubs are basically a handful of people that are still willing (for reasons known only to the maker) to volunteer their resources to ensure that the game can continue. We are in critically short supply of those folks and after a whole bunch of years the fun is about to run out. So how do we deal with this? Limits are not the best answer but it is a way for the club to ensure that they aren't overwhelmed by a couple of folks that bring nothing but an appetite, and leave noting but a lingering trail of dust. We live in fear of the 62 dog entry (that inevitably scratches back to 58) but in the meantime means that we are scrambling to find the resources to split knowing full well that we are going to lose money in the process. So someone's ox is going to get gored- why on earth would any rational person NOT expect that to be the parasites?
> 
> If you think that your entry fee is sufficient contribution- stay the #^&* home!!!! Sitting around on your keister proclaiming that you would love to help but _____________ is just BS there are PLENTY of ways to help regardless of physical capabilities. It really doesn't matter what a person does for a living- including training dogs there are LOTS of ways to help out.
> I'm in complete agreement with Todd- how much fun could it be to watch someone else run your dog??
> ...


Happy Birthday. 
I agree with you. Now what do you do when something like this happens and three pros make up the full field of entries? I would be tempted to say screw it I am not going and working when I can't run my own dogs. Being that I am almost always on the HT committee that is really to an option. I think the MO club put themselves in this position by limiting entries. It seems it didn't stop the pro entries and only knocked out the very club members who wanted to limit entries in the first place.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JS said:


> Ya, just being a little facetious there. I don't think it would be much fun having someone else do it for me either. Just saying , to each, their own. Lots of reasons someone might use a pro.
> 
> This whole thread is about pot stirrin'
> 
> JS



There may be an element of pot stirring here, but at its heart is what I think is a key issue.

How do we protect the workers who put on the trials for others? They, more than anyone else, should be provided a spot in the trial.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

For a moment, set aside pros and set aside this particular instance--

Isn't the problem that there is the perception, possibility, and/or at least potential truth that the limited entries rules allow some people to use inside information to get in, ensuring an "underclass" can then be left out?

This is as much about popular v. unpopular, or wealthy v. poor, or good ol' boys v. li'l gal, or sympathetic v. unsympathetic, annoying v. likeable, or sec's friends v. those unknown, or or or...???

_none of which have anything to do with the quality of the dog/handler team?_


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

JS said:


> Ya, just being a little facetious there. I don't think it would be much fun having someone else do it for me either. Just saying , to each, their own. Lots of reasons someone might use a pro.
> 
> This whole thread is about pot stirrin'
> 
> JS


Not pot stirring! JMO that training and running your dog is satisfying to me. I do respect reasons for not running your dog, b/c there are always circumstances. JMO


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

It's all a sign of the times. Revisit the early years where there were 10 or 15 dogs in a Master mostly trained by amateurs, sometimes a pass rate of only half dozen dogs. Two kinds of people ran AKC hunt tests, those who were disgruntled with field trials or those like myself field trialers who"dabbled" in hunt tests as a nice diversion from trials.
Then came the Master National in 1991 preceded were two Master Invitations in 1990 maybe more? Going by memory and I am old, testing the waters for interest. The AKC took off more then anyone realized, even some of the founders were surprised. Money was to be made with training and handlernfees. Many, many pros, some who were field trial pros jumped in. My fondest memory were a couple watching or peeking from behind a vehicle while theirPro ran their junior dog!
I said to myself geeze what's wrong with this picture 65 bucks handler fee to run a dog in a junior, plus the monthly training fees of 400 or 500 plus a months plus birds! Then the breeders got involved tacking titles behind their dogs, more money. AKC loved it more money. To this date where pros dominate all levels of the game, especially at the Master level 700,800 to infinity to qualify for the Master National, " I am surprised there isn't a Junior National" ,not speaking the Canadian version of the derby either. More and More money. Now people are buying their way into the hunt test game as many do in the field trial game. They buy multiple dogs, thousands of dollars in training and handler fees. More pros, everyone is a pro, title one junior dog become a pro, hang your shingle up, more money. Folks it ain't gonna stop get used to it , the money flows, the monster was created, and the future well, more Nationals, regional nationals, amateur nationals, more money. One man's opinion on the limits.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> As to "sitting in front of a computer" all day every day, out east here we have these things called "smart-phones" and "i-pads" and such. Makes it easy to stay in contact with important stuff. And if a handler - pro or not - has all of his/her dogs listed on EE it's 1 click per dog to enter. So entering 10 dogs might take a second longer than a single dog.
> Sorry you did not get to enter the test you wanted to but not every chance occurrence is the result of some nefarious conspiracy. Maybe next time you could volunteer to be HT Sec'y. Then you'd have no trouble entering on time.


 Ahem....yes I do have a smart phone but like some others who run dogs and happen to live in a rural area, there is no reception in most of the county that I live in. As in.... I not only can't make calls, I cannot connect to the internet, either. I certainly would have no way of connecting or checking Entry Express hourly.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I mentioned this before, and no one commented, but in agility the clubs are allowed to reserve a certain number of spots for workers. Why not in HT? It's not that hard to do. EE could set it to close at, for example, 50 instead of 60, and then over-ride it for the 10 workers. Of course, people also have to sign up to work in order to get a worker's spot. But there's never a shortage of workers, because they are guaranteed a running spot.

oh, and Julie, I live in a similar area, and I don't have a smart phone. So I couldn't check hourly, either.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Julie R. said:


> Ahem....yes I do have a smart phone but like some others who run dogs and happen to live in a rural area, there is no reception in most of the county that I live in. As in.... I not only can't make calls, I cannot connect to the internet, either. I certainly would have no way of connecting or checking Entry Express hourly.



I don't think Bob was saying everyone, but I would bet you are in the minority.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> It's all a sign of the times. Revisit the early years where there were 10 or 15 dogs in a Master mostly trained by amateurs, sometimes a pass rate of only half dozen dogs. Two kinds of people ran AKC hunt tests, those who were disgruntled with field trials or those like myself field trialers who"dabbled" in hunt tests as a nice diversion from trials.
> Then came the Master National in 1991 preceded were two Master Invitations in 1990 maybe more? Going by memory and I am old, testing the waters for interest. The AKC took off more then anyone realized, even some of the founders were surprised. Money was to be made with training and handlernfees. Many, many pros, some who were field trial pros jumped in. My fondest memory were a couple watching or peeking from behind a vehicle while theirPro ran their junior dog!
> I said to myself geeze what's wrong with this picture 65 bucks handler fee to run a dog in a junior, plus the monthly training fees of 400 or 500 plus a months plus birds! Then the breeders got involved tacking titles behind their dogs, more money. AKC loved it more money. To this date where pros dominate all levels of the game, especially at the Master level 700,800 to infinity to qualify for the Master National, " I am surprised there isn't a Junior National" ,not speaking the Canadian version of the derby either. More and More money. Now people are buying their way into the hunt test game as many do in the field trial game. They buy multiple dogs, thousands of dollars in training and handler fees. More pros, everyone is a pro, title one junior dog become a pro, hang your shingle up, more money. Folks it ain't gonna stop get used to it , the money flows, the monster was created, and the future well, more Nationals, regional nationals, amateur nationals, more money. One man's opinion on the limits.



Here here! Mr. Dillow you have phrased this very well and I am so glad it came from someone of your reputation and experience! I believe that professionalization of a sport or game is the eventual ruination of it for most who do it for fun or love. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc, etc, ad nauseum are no longer sports, they are entertainment business. That is fine as obviously millions enjoy that. I have only respect for the pros that train good dogs with such dedication and skill. I would certainly not be able to play if it were not for the pros that have helped me over the years. And no pro is to blame for my mistakes. My issue is the group of amateurs unwilling to do the learning or work involved and who turn it all over to the pros. For them it's easier to spend the money than the time or effort. And guess who is talking loudest in the gallery and helping the least?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

2tall said:


> Here here! Mr. Dillow you have phrased this very well and I am so glad it came from someone of your reputation and experience! I believe that professionalization of a sport or game is the eventual ruination of it for most who do it for fun or love. Football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc, etc, ad nauseum are no longer sports, they are entertainment business. That is fine as obviously millions enjoy that. I have only respect for the pros that train good dogs with such dedication and skill. I would certainly not be able to play if it were not for the pros that have helped me over the years. And no pro is to blame for my mistakes. My issue is the group of amateurs unwilling to do the learning or work involved and who turn it all over to the pros. For them it's easier to spend the money than the time or effort. And guess who is talking loudest in the gallery and helping the least?



Eh, no. You can have all the non pro sports you want, but I want to see the biggest, fastest, strongest player do their thing. Same is kind of true of dogs. Where would we be without the Lardy's, Carr's et al of the dog world.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Eh, no. You can have all the non pro sports you want, but I want to see the biggest, fastest, strongest player do their thing. Same is kind of true of dogs. Where would we be without the Lardy's, Carr's et al of the dog world.


Sorry Corey, college BB over NBA all day long... Football is gaining on them. Rather watch someone who really wants to be there.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Not me. I love college football but that is all that is on Saturday, give me pros any day. Heck I don't even like amateur porn over the pros.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> Eh, no. You can have all the non pro sports you want, but I want to see the biggest, fastest, strongest player do their thing. Same is kind of true of dogs. Where would we be without the Lardy's, Carr's et al of the dog world.


I agree my post was my opinion on where the destination of AKC hunt tests were headed not on whether I agree or not.
Go Bulls and Bears , I complain about My pro teams, but, what would it be without the losing Cubbies to cheer or the Cheesehead Pack that I can't stand! Need to hate something, hate the Pack, hate Miami, now I feel good. Off to train dogs.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Heck I don't even like amateur porn over the pros.


When is the draft to turn the ams into pros? How do they determine order of picks? Don't think I have ever seen it broadcast on ESPN.
MP


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Eh, no. You can have all the non pro sports you want, but I want to see the biggest, fastest, strongest player do their thing. Same is kind of true of dogs. Where would we be without the Lardy's, Carr's et al of the dog world.


There ya go. You want to see, that is entertainment. I want to play. That is me having fun. And in further agreement, if seeing is what you like, then yes you go watch the pros. I agree we need them all to set a bar. But if I want to play, I go to hunt tests and I am going to be a sad camper the day the ams can not enter because of the non players.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Am I laboring under a misconception here???

In a HT the bar is not set by the participants, It is at a predetermined height ostensibly set by a standard(?).

john


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> Not me. I love college football but that is all that is on Saturday, give me pros any day. Heck I don't even like amateur porn over the pros.


Put me in coach, I'm ready to play today, Put me in coach look at me centerfold, oops centerfield.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

The pro training for and the pro handling in hunt tests has had a remarkable growth in the past few years.

The number of hunt test entries have skyrocketed. The number of dogs who qualify for the master national has skyrocketed and the number of dogs who enter master nationals has skyrocketed since 2010. The majority of MN handlers are pros. The statistics for master nationals 2010, 2011, and 2012 are on the Master National Retriever Club website. 

Helen


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Bubba said:


> The issue is that we live in a finite world. Apparently on Spag's planet there is always room for more people that bring nothing, add nothing and leave before the bill comes due. In actual fact MANY of the clubs are basically a handful of people that are still willing (for reasons known only to the maker) to volunteer their resources to ensure that the game can continue. We are in critically short supply of those folks and after a whole bunch of years the fun is about to run out. So how do we deal with this? Limits are not the best answer but it is a way for the club to ensure that they aren't overwhelmed by a couple of folks that bring nothing but an appetite, and leave noting but a lingering trail of dust. We live in fear of the 62 dog entry (that inevitably scratches back to 58) but in the meantime means that we are scrambling to find the resources to split knowing full well that we are going to lose money in the process. So someone's ox is going to get gored- why on earth would any rational person NOT expect that to be the parasites?
> 
> If you think that your entry fee is sufficient contribution- stay the #^&* home!!!! Sitting around on your keister proclaiming that you would love to help but _____________ is just BS there are PLENTY of ways to help regardless of physical capabilities. It really doesn't matter what a person does for a living- including training dogs there are LOTS of ways to help out.
> I'm in complete agreement with Todd- how much fun could it be to watch someone else run your dog??
> ...


Don't know what you know about dogs and hunt tests but I DO know that you know NOTHING about "Spag's planet". I also know that your name isn't on the list of people who tell me when and where I stay home. Finally, please link me to the web page that picked you as the one who tells me whether or not I'm welcome. That information is 180° out of phase with my experiences...but thanks for your opinion!


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

duk4me said:


> Put me in coach, I'm ready to play today, Put me in coach *look at me centerfold*, oops centerfield.


Freudian slip? ;-)


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Spag said:


> Don't know what you know about dogs and hunt tests but I DO know that you know NOTHING about "Spag's planet". I also know that your name isn't on the list of people who tell me when and where I stay home. Finally, please link me to the web page that picked you as the one who tells me whether or not I'm welcome. That information is 180° out of phase with my experiences...but thanks for your opinion!


So the plan is to continue to abuse your friends and neighbors secure in the knowledge that they will continue to do as they have always done?

Strangling golden geese regards

Bubba


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Spag said:


> Don't know what you know about dogs and hunt tests but I DO know that you know NOTHING about "Spag's planet". I also know that your name isn't on the list of people who tell me when and where I stay home. Finally, please link me to the web page that picked you as the one who tells me whether or not I'm welcome. That information is 180° out of phase with my experiences...but thanks for your opinion!



I get that you don't like being told what to do on the internet. But, are you saying that you only run hunt tests, and never help out at one?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Bubba said:


> The issue is that we live in a finite world. Apparently on Spag's planet there is always room for more people that bring nothing, add nothing and leave before the bill comes due. In actual fact MANY of the clubs are basically a handful of people that are still willing (for reasons known only to the maker) to volunteer their resources to ensure that the game can continue. We are in critically short supply of those folks and after a whole bunch of years the fun is about to run out. So how do we deal with this? Limits are not the best answer but it is a way for the club to ensure that they aren't overwhelmed by a couple of folks that bring nothing but an appetite, and leave noting but a lingering trail of dust. We live in fear of the 62 dog entry (that inevitably scratches back to 58) but in the meantime means that we are scrambling to find the resources to split knowing full well that we are going to lose money in the process. So someone's ox is going to get gored- why on earth would any rational person NOT expect that to be the parasites?
> 
> If you think that your entry fee is sufficient contribution- stay the #^&* home!!!! Sitting around on your keister proclaiming that you would love to help but _____________ is just BS there are PLENTY of ways to help regardless of physical capabilities. It really doesn't matter what a person does for a living- including training dogs there are LOTS of ways to help out.
> I'm in complete agreement with Todd- how much fun could it be to watch someone else run your dog??
> ...


Hope you had a good BD. I like this post!!! IMO


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Bubba said:


> So the plan is to continue to abuse your friends and neighbors secure in the knowledge that they will continue to do as they have always done?
> 
> Strangling golden geese regards
> 
> Bubba


 Today, is MY Birthday!

So, eff everybody else. It's all about me (to me), and I don't care about anybody else. (BTW, I'm WELL into a 1.75 ml bottle of The King.)
I am still proud to handle my dog, fail all by myself, and help out in every test I run in, that is held by a club that I'm not a member of.


It's all about the dogs, regards.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

copterdoc said:


> Today, is MY Birthday!
> 
> So, eff everybody else. It's all about me (to me), and I don't care about anybody else. (BTW, I'm WELL into a 1.75 ml bottle of The King.)
> I am still proud to handle my dog, fail all by myself, and help out in every test I run in, that is held by a club that I'm not a member of.
> ...


Happy BD. Enjoy yourself. It is all about the DOGS.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Happy BD. Enjoy yourself. It is all about the DOGS.


 I'd like to be allowed to have better dogs, but The Queen has ruled that we can only have the ones that we currently have.










If she ain't happy, I ain't happy.

She ain't always happy with me. 
But, she's always happy with the dogs.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

FinnLandR said:


> A bottle that contains less than 1/2 a teaspoon? Happy Birthday, light weight.....


 What, you think you can hang?

I'm a former Marine damn it!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

You guys probably buy your whiskey.

My dogs deliver it!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

And just for legality, he's over 21 in dog years.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Um......................... The Marine thing explains LOTS.

BIG difference between 1.75 mL and 1.75L

Size DOES matter regards

Bubba


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Bubba said:


> Um......................... The Marine thing explains LOTS.
> 
> BIG difference between 1.75 *m*L and 1.75L
> 
> ...


HAHA,thats funny ,good catch Bubba!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Bubba said:


> Um......................... The Marine thing explains LOTS.
> 
> BIG difference between 1.75 mL and 1.75L
> 
> ...


 You can always tell a Marine. But, you can't tell em' much.
I apologize for the L/ml error. 

I'm an American, regards.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Americans typically live *EXTREMELY *sheltered lives. 
There is a great deal of evil in this world, that the American media would not have the balls to *EVER *broadcast, or "report".

To "us" things like the Casey Anthony, or George Zimmerman cases are a "big deal".

In the real world, they are non-sequiturs. 
Not even comparable to the "collateral damage" that is often the product of what really matters.

Most Americans are blind. 
And perfectly content to stay that way.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Americans typically live *EXTREMELY *sheltered lives.
> There is a great deal of evil in this world, that the American media would not have the balls to *EVER *broadcast, or "report".
> 
> To "us" things like the Casey Anthony, or George Zimmerman cases are a "big deal".
> ...



Spare me. 

If you need to pat yourself on the back for your patriotism or vision, POTUS is waiting for you.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Thank you for your service Copdoc and happy birthday. You are going to have one big headache tomorrow. 

You have a donkey?!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pals said:


> Thank you for your service Copdoc and happy birthday. You are going to have one big headache tomorrow.
> 
> You have a donkey?!


I have a big fat one.

I promise that I will not have a headache. I am presently immune.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Spare me.
> 
> If you need to pat yourself on the back for your patriotism or vision, POTUS is waiting for you.


I'm pretty far from someone that is seeking a pat on the back. I'd rather that nobody even knows who I am.

I still like to talk about training dogs though.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I have a big fat one.
> 
> I promise that I will not have a headache. I am presently immune.


Why yes I believe you are indeed immune!! Good luck with your overweight ass.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pals said:


> Why yes I believe you are indeed immune!! Good luck with your overweight ass.


 I, and all of us Americans with great big, fat asses, thank you!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Nothing like Sunday nigh drunk posting!

happy birthday


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Nothing like Sunday nigh drunk posting!
> 
> happy birthday


 I'm not so drunk, as to miss the absence of the letter T.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

copterdoc said:


> I have a big fat one.


I forgot to mention, that it is also an exceedingly amateur one.


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

It's a Hunt Test. Get over it run a Trial.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

helencalif said:


> The pro training for and the pro handling in hunt tests has had a remarkable growth in the past few years.
> 
> The number of hunt test entries have skyrocketed. The number of dogs who qualify for the master national has skyrocketed and the number of dogs who enter master nationals has skyrocketed since 2010. The majority of MN handlers are pros. The statistics for master nationals 2010, 2011, and 2012 are on the Master National Retriever Club website.
> 
> Helen



But those statistics are skewed to try and make the MN point, and they did it in a bad light. The reason for the large increase from 2010 until now is because AKC and MN joined forces to offer the MNH title. What are the requirements to obtain the MNH title? Qualify (pass) three MNs. 

As we all know, people go crazy for titles. Just something else to put at the end (or beginning) of their dog's registered name. 

If the MN and AKC could not foresee the large increase in numbers when a title is attached, then they must have been smoking something when the decision was made. 

So then we get to the next thing: What is the result of qualifying for three MNs? Well, increased participation at the local level, because of course, at the same time, they passed the qualification changes to ANY 6 tests. So what happened at the local level. Clubs who normally had 30-40 Master dogs on a weekend, immediately went to 60+ dogs, causing headaches for clubs trying to meet the AKC requirement of splits, etc. 

Because of these changes, the Pros have benefited because regular joe just does not have the time or knowledge to train their dog year in and year out to not only obtain the MH title, but then qualify AND RUN the MN once, let alone three times. 

It is not the Pros fault, but we keep trying to skin them like it is their fault.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Agreed Zman. 

Am I right or wrong in thinking that AKC requires clubs, if holding a HT, to include ALL stakes? Is there a limit to the number of events held in a calendar year?

It sure smells like an entrepreneurial club if able/willing to hold a Master-only event, outside of 'normal events' would make some nice $$ and help resolve the issue in MN regions. As a club member - I'd work a Master only 'extra event' not only for revenue but to also take heat off my club tests serving a larger audience.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Holding a master only event strategically the year that the mn was going to be near your area was an idea I put forth once. Seemed logical to me. Give our locals another chance at getting a pass if needed and a last minute chance for a test. Not to mention a good revenue boost. Then again, to quote the words of a not so famous big timer, "I don't know sh*t" (unless it was someone else's idea first of course) lol


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

HNTFSH said:


> Agreed Zman.
> 
> Am I right or wrong in thinking that AKC requires clubs, if holding a HT, to include ALL stakes? Is there a limit to the number of events held in a calendar year?
> 
> It sure smells like an entrepreneurial club if able/willing to hold a Master-only event, outside of 'normal events' would make some nice $$ and help resolve the issue in MN regions. As a club member - I'd work a Master only 'extra event' not only for revenue but to also take heat off my club tests serving a larger audience.


I don't believe that you have to hold all levels. I know a club here holds a junior/senior only each year and have for a long time.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Sometimes, to arrive at an answer to a problem one needs to ask some questions;

1. WHAT IF- the MNRC developed their own, seperate standard for the dogs meet in order to get a Plate?

2. WHAT IF- qualifying to go to the MN did NOT require ANY number of weekend passes?

3. WHAT IF- there were 4 regional qualifying tests, one in each region, judged to the proposed new MN standard and ALL MH titled dogs could enter up to all 4 if they needed to in order to pass one?

I believe these changes would solve a lot of the problems being experienced by a significant number of clubs at the weekend tests.

I believe these changes would significantly reduce the number of dogs qualified to run the MN. They would also raise the bar for those who pass the MN, making it even more prestigious. They would make the MNH title something that significantly fewer dogs
would attain, enhancing the prestige related to the accomplishment significantly. 

one man's opinion.-Paul


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

From the rules: At least two test levels must be offered at all licensed and member club events, except a club holding its first
licensed or member club event.
Clubs that sponsor more than two hunting tests in any
twelve month period shall be required to offer at least once
in any combination, each of the three (3) test levels.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

At then end of the day the whole thing is going to fold for clubs who depend on amateur members to put on the test.

Exclude my entries because of a bunch of pros entering and I'm sure not coming out to throw stinky birds in 90 degree heat all day.

Next thing you know... you have no help and it doesn't matter anymore. 

There you're going to be with your committee members and 3 pros who didn't bring handlers that can then throw birds.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Holding a master only event strategically the year that the mn was going to be near your area was an idea I put forth once. Seemed logical to me. Give our locals another chance at getting a pass if needed and a last minute chance for a test. Not to mention a good revenue boost. Then again, to quote the words of a not so famous big timer, "I don't know sh*t" (unless it was someone else's idea first of course) lol


Actually the master stake has the highest costs and lowest margin of all the hunt test stakes. If a club wants to gain some margin (I'm opposed to the use of "profit" related to non-profit clubs), they should be holding a double jr/sr along with their master stakes.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

paul young said:


> Sometimes, to arrive at an answer to a problem one needs to ask some questions;
> 
> 1. WHAT IF- the MNRC developed their own, seperate standard for the dogs meet in order to get a Plate?
> 
> ...


Paul the rub with your suggestions is that it puts no money in the pocket of the AKC by eliminating the qualifying requirements, and at least at this point the MN wants AKC affiliation.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Actually the master stake has the highest costs and lowest margin of all the hunt test stakes. If a club wants to gain some margin (I'm opposed to the use of "profit" related to non-profit clubs), they should be holding a double jr/sr along with their master stakes.


Then again that depends on entries. In the last few years we have had an average of about 10 senior entries and maybe 17 junior while master was full for the most part. Bringing in judges for 10 senior dogs doesn't help the bottom line. The new rules regarding judges also does not help clubs in this situation.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Actually the master stake has the highest costs and lowest margin of all the hunt test stakes. If a club wants to gain some margin (I'm opposed to the use of "profit" related to non-profit clubs), they should be holding a double jr/sr along with their master stakes.


That's typically true. Until you only have 30 JH dogs and 90+ MH level dogs. How exactly is holding a double JH with 30 dogs going to come out ahead?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

BBG beat me to it- 

Profit/making money put aside, if you have a large local MH group running for MN qualification, don't you think it would be of a service to your club members to offer up a MH test shortly before they head out to the MN or, in case they need another pass they won't have to drive 500 miles to the nearest test?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> That's typically true. Until you only have 30 JH dogs and 90+ MH level dogs. How exactly is holding a double JH with 30 dogs going to come out ahead?


Because you don't have double judge expense, or another way to look at it is that you have already paid the judges expenses on Saturday. You just have the jr & sr judges swap out on Sunday. While adding master flights you also have to add judges.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Then again that depends on entries. In the last few years we have had an average of about 10 senior entries and maybe 17 junior while master was full for the most part. Bringing in judges for 10 senior dogs doesn't help the bottom line. The new rules regarding judges also does not help clubs in this situation.


Then have a double jr & sr - you've already paid for the judges..........we've always had margin on a double jr/sr with as few as 15 dogs. And, BTW, you will attract more jr/sr entrants with a double jr/sr. And you need to have an outlet for newcomers to come in...


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> Then have a double jr & sr - you've already paid for the judges..........we've always had margin on a double jr/sr with as few as 15 dogs. And, BTW, you will attract more jr/sr entrants with a double jr/sr. And you need to have an outlet for newcomers to come in...


Good thoughts but would still argue with many clubs the land, water, worker is the resource issue dealt with. As is the 'banquet or tail gate' anticipation which is nice for the 'general entrants' at a hunt test but likley not important to MN qualification seekers. 

A club workforce dedicated to the sole purpose of revenue is far different than the 'typical' hunt test. While margins are smaller on Master, so too would be the cost associated with a test, by design.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Spare me.
> 
> If you need to pat yourself on the back for your patriotism or vision, POTUS is waiting for you.


Turn in your guns yet?

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> Sometimes, to arrive at an answer to a problem one needs to ask some questions;
> 
> 1. WHAT IF- the MNRC developed their own, seperate standard for the dogs meet in order to get a Plate?
> 
> ...


Paul you're gonna piss off the good old boys in the club if you keep spewing these radical ideas...

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Then have a double jr & sr - you've already paid for the judges..........we've always had margin on a double jr/sr with as few as 15 dogs. And, BTW, you will attract more jr/sr entrants with a double jr/sr.


We always have a double. Still not much margin in it. With he new judge requirements it gets even harder. Can't have the same judges judge the same flight two days. And finding jr/sr flip judges has become more difficult. Being that we are as far south as clubs get, the cost of judges run us about $350-400 regardless of one day or two. A flight of 10 seniors @ $75 each covers only the cost of the judges and nothing towards birds, help, poppers..... Toss in 35 birds @ $10-13 each, and $300 each day for bird boys and that 10 dog senior ends up costing you money. You might make a little on juniors but at best the two break even when all is said and done. 
On a 60 dog master flight at $80 we end up with about a$1000 "profit". If it were not for our raffle we wound have lost money at several events. The raffle brings in anywhere from $300-800 dollars depending on the generosity of kind folks like Dogs Afield, TT, Purina, Gunners Up, and others as well as donations from club members.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Good thoughts but would still argue with many clubs the land, water, worker is the resource issue dealt with. As is the 'banquet or tail gate' anticipation which is nice for the 'general entrants' at a hunt test but likley not important to MN qualification seekers.
> 
> A club workforce dedicated to the sole purpose of revenue is far different than the 'typical' hunt test. While margins are smaller on Master, so too would be the cost associated with a test, by design.


Or when its pretty clear that a club will have an abundance of riches, milk it for all its worth? 150/entrant for master, only one junior no senior, all club workers, all club judgess, special raffle prizes, accept doantions, "all proceeds to special fund for land purchase.”

i'm sort of kidding, sort of serious.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Paul you're gonna piss off the good old boys in the club if you keep spewing these radical ideas...
> 
> /Paul


LOL! that SHIP sailed LONG ago! But....thanks for looking out for me!-Paul


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

luvalab said:


> Or when its pretty clear that a club will have an abundance of riches, milk it for all its worth? 150/entrant for master, only one junior no senior, all club workers, all club judgess, special raffle prizes, accept doantions, "all proceeds to special fund for land purchase.”
> 
> i'm sort of kidding, sort of serious.


Pretty much!!! ;-)

Until the 'thing' sorts itself out...carpe diem. A test event to satisfy the demand, nobody loses. In the meantime the bigger brains can figure out the long term solution - I'm just a guy with a dog.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Keep it quite  but I received super secret e-mails as did every member of the club telling when the clubs limited would be open, then the members took it on themselves to update membership after every scratch, I guess I'm in the Know . Of course They were also begging for help with 2 MH stakes, so they made sure, those they really needed to show-up got every opportunity to get their dogs in, There was even rumors of mail-in waiting entries, for last minute scratches after the close, and phone calls from member to member if they would have to scratch their own dog and when that was going to happen . Preferential treatment, maybe but you help your workers and club members out. A disorganized test might lose $ without a pro, will definitely lose money if they're simply holding places and pull out last minute with no notice for unknown reasons. A test will not go on if the workers do not show up, and will definitely lose $ if you have to pay for the help club members give for free. It might be beneficial to take that into account, who actually makes a test happen and how to get your workers in, when planning tests


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Am I laboring under a misconception here???
> 
> In a HT the bar is not set by the participants, It is at a predetermined height ostensibly set by a standard(?).
> 
> john


 I've been pondering this since yesterday, and I couldn't think quite how to phrase what I wanted to say.
But, I've thought about it, and here goes.

If your dog's performance is REALLY not being compared to the rest of the field, why is it that many dogs are allowed to honor off lead, but are not called back to the next series?

If it's truly being judged to a set standard, and not a case of "We'll wait and see what the next few dogs do", then the dog is already out. 
It should be required to honor on lead.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I can tell you as a judge I will let a dog on the bubble honor off lead for a couple of reasons.

1. He could break. That makes it easy. Most of the time when their are on the bubble is due to control issues, so rather than pencil em out, I give em a chance ot redeem.
2. Need time to talk to my co-judge to decide. That is why there are two judges.

/Paul


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> .
> 
> If your dog's performance is REALLY not being compared to the rest of the field, why is it that many dogs are allowed to honor off lead, but are not called back to the next series?
> 
> .


sometimes the dog and handlers actions while on honor are the
_"pièce de résistance"


_


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

If the dog is on the bubble for control issues, why risk letting it mess up the working dog, or worse, get in a fight?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I've been pondering this since yesterday, and I couldn't think quite how to phrase what I wanted to say.
> But, I've thought about it, and here goes.
> 
> If your dog's performance is REALLY not being compared to the rest of the field, why is it that many dogs are allowed to honor off lead, but are not called back to the next series?
> ...


Many cases it is not immediately a cut and dried decision if the dog is back or not. Judges would rather confer and discuss before deciding. Good judges will keep things moving and "talk about it later".

JS


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

JS said:


> Many cases it is not immediately a cut and dried decision if the dog is back or not. Judges would rather confer and discuss before deciding. Good judges will keep things moving and "talk about it later".
> 
> JS


 Pretty much says it right there.

This weekend had a dog do a very poor land blind. Good honor. Great marks. Lousy land blind. Could have made an argument to drop him, but his other work was stellar. Called back and told him he needed an 8 or 9 on his water blind. ( not and easy blind at all) Did the second best blind of the afternoon, great water marks and we were happy to give him a qualifiying score.


I will always try to let a team redeem themselves after a hiccup. 

It's not always so black and white Regards


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I've been pondering this since yesterday, and I couldn't think quite how to phrase what I wanted to say.
> But, I've thought about it, and here goes.
> 
> If your dog's performance is REALLY not being compared to the rest of the field, why is it that many dogs are allowed to honor off lead, but are not called back to the next series?
> ...


It takes two judges to drop a dog. There is generally not enough time to discuss until after the dogs have run. The clear cut cases usually just take a nod.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> Pretty much says it right there.
> 
> This weekend had a dog do a very poor land blind. Good honor. Great marks. Lousy land blind. Could have made an argument to drop him, but his other work was stellar. Called back and told him he needed an 8 or 9 on his water blind. ( not and easy blind at all) Did the second best blind of the afternoon, great water marks and we were happy to give him a qualifiying score.
> 
> ...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

My point is that a set standard IS black and white. 
It IS cut and dried.
If the dog did poorly enough to fail the test in that series, and it's also an honor series, the dog should be required to honor on a rope.

The last series is a different story.


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

The standard basically comes down to an average score and sometimes it takes deliberation to reach that score. There are many times I want to discuss a poor performance with my co-judge because I don't want to make a snap decision on the line. That's why there are two people scoring. If the dog can mathematically still qualify with a poor perfromance I let them keep running.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> My point is that a set standard IS black and white.
> It IS cut and dried.
> If the dog did poorly enough to fail the test in that series, and it's also an honor series, the dog should be required to honor on a rope.
> 
> The last series is a different story.


I suspect this coming from someone that has never judged. It is definitely not all black and white. There is lots of gray and individual interpretation.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> My point is that a set standard IS black and white.
> It IS cut and dried.


NO it is not. Not at all.

The standard is parameters within which many things may occur. Much of that is interpretation and the two judges will try to agree on the performance. It's not an engineering exercise.

JS


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Russ said:


> I suspect this coming from someone that has never judged. It is definitely not all black and white. There is lots of gray and individual interpretation.


 Your suspicion is correct. I have not ever judged.

And I do not disagree with your assertion that judging hunt tests is not black and white.

However, the fact is that a set standard IS by definition black and white. 
And since these dogs are being judged, how the rest of the field performs the same test does absolutely factor into how the "standard" is read.

In other words, it changes the height of the "bar".

I just gave an example of how that is evidenced. 
I'm not saying that I don't like it the way that it is. I'm not throwing anybody under a bus. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm not judging Judges.

I'm just making a point. An observation.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> However, the fact is that a set standard IS by definition black and white.
> And since these dogs are being judged, how the rest of the field performs the same test does absolutely factor into how the "standard" is read.


I think that your premise is off. It has been a long time since I judged a HT but how the other dogs performed never entered into the equation and I can't say I know of any judges today that use that for scoring. Just because a judge doesn't make you rope your dog, doesn't mean that they are waiting to see how the other dogs do. You may have failed but it might not be obvious enough that the judges at that moment in time will both make the call. You may have hacked it up, but might have a chance at still passing--the judges are waiting to see how your dog will do later, not how the other dogs do.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> .....You may have hacked it up, but might have a chance at still passing--*the judges are waiting to see how your dog will do later*, not how the other dogs do.


 If the dog completed the series, the only later, is what the rest of the dogs do in that series.

The dog on the honor, has already run the series. 
If it gets through the honor, there is no "standard" left for it to fail in that series.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Ha ! I apprenticed one time,and gave some 10s for perfect jobs on a test.....I was chastised for that ......never went back for more. Also gave zeros for terrible jobs,and told I need to let them play ,or there would be no one left for the last series.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> If the dog completed the series, the only later, is what the rest of the dogs do in that series.
> 
> The dog on the honor, has already run the series.
> If it gets through the honor, there is no "standard" left for it to fail in that series.


A HT is not scored series by series, but on an average throughout the test. A dog can fail so badly in a series that they cannot pass but, as folks gave examples above, they can finish a series on the bubble and end up with a passing score (or not) based on later work.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> I've been pondering this since yesterday, and I couldn't think quite how to phrase what I wanted to say.
> But, I've thought about it, and here goes.
> 
> If your dog's performance is REALLY not being compared to the rest of the field, why is it that many dogs are allowed to honor off lead, but are not called back to the next series?
> ...


Mostly because as a judge I often have to do some math on a dog on the bubble and don't know at the point of honor if he can mathematically continue. It has ZERO to do with how the other dogs do. If I know you are out you honor on lead, but more times than to I have to meet with my cojudge to determine if a borderline dog can make it and I usually do that when the series is over and we sit and talk about call backs.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> If the dog completed the series, the only later, is what the rest of the dogs do in that series.
> 
> The dog on the honor, has already run the series.
> If it gets through the honor, there is no "standard" left for it to fail in that series.


as pointed out AKC test are not judged by series but by cumulative score for all series. Yes, you could have a series that puts you put, but you could have an average first, poor second, and excellent third and still qualify. Unless the score from the average first and poor second are so low that the is no way you can pass the rules say you continue. I do not tally scores until the series is over, not because I am waiting to see what the other dogs do, but because that is the most efficient time wise. It takes two judges to drop a dog and it is not feasible to tally scores immediately after a dog runs unless you zero it on something. That is pretty much why judges meet after each series and then give call backs.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> If the dog is on the bubble for control issues, why risk letting it mess up the working dog, or worse, get in a fight?


Hope you don't judge

/Paul


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I get that you don't like being told what to do on the internet. But, are you saying that you only run hunt tests, and never help out at one?


No sir...not saying that at all! I have just been participating in the discussion. I offered a couple of opinions and defended what appeared to be an exercise in pro bashing...and, I must add that I thought I did so without being critical or rude to ANYONE or flaming them for their opinion. Then...out of the blue...there appears this clown who is laboring under the mis-apprehension that he knows me, all about me, my participation in hunt tests, and, apparently, every other aspect of my life. He swore at me and told me I wasn't welcome. I took exception to his ignorant mis-characterization and responded. I didn't say that I don't like being told what to do nor that I only run HT's without helping. The point is just that...I didn't say and he hasn't a clue. The old saying comes to mind..."It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speaking and removing all doubt." He, obviously, took the latter option.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Spag said:


> No sir...not saying that at all! I have just been participating in the discussion. I offered a couple of opinions and defended what appeared to be an exercise in pro bashing...and, I must add that I thought I did so without being critical or rude to ANYONE or flaming them for their opinion. Then...out of the blue...there appears this clown who is laboring under the mis-apprehension that he knows me, all about me, my participation in hunt tests, and, apparently, every other aspect of my life. He swore at me and told me I wasn't welcome. I took exception to his ignorant mis-characterization and responded. I didn't say that I don't like being told what to do nor that I only run HT's without helping. The point is just that...I didn't say and he hasn't a clue. The old saying comes to mind..."It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speaking and removing all doubt." He, obviously, took the latter option.


The clown in question has a 25+ year history of being on multiple club BOD's, uncountable HT committee's (typically more than 1 per year), was a Master National President, served on the RHTAC, trained numerous dogs himself, judges numerous times every year, and you can find him to discuss how big a prick he is pretty much any weekend at a training day or HT sitting in a gun station. He gets a little miffed when a guy like yourself sits back in the gallery and watches a pro run the dog. While I also do not know you, I can get a pretty good picture of your involvement in the sport since you do not judge, almost every HT picture of your dog is with Chris Akin and you basically stated you like to sit in the gallery. This is exactly why the other thread concerning people using their real names and "pelts" continues to live. We have two examples, the clown Bubba and yourself. 

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The clown in question has a 25+ year history of being on multiple club BOD's, uncountable HT committee's (typically more than 1 per year), was a Master National President, served on the RHTAC, trained numerous dogs himself, judges numerous times every year, and you can find him to discuss how big a prick he is pretty much any weekend at a training day or HT sitting in a gun station. He gets a little miffed when a guy like yourself sits back in the gallery and watches a pro run the dog. While I also do not know you, I can get a pretty good picture of your involvement in the sport since you do not judge, almost every HT picture of your dog is with Chris Akin and you basically stated you like to sit in the gallery. This is exactly why the other thread concerning people using their real names and "pelts" continues to live. We have two examples, the clown Bubba and yourself.
> 
> /Paul


Oh my, belt meet butt


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The clown in question has a 25+ year history of being on multiple club BOD's, uncountable HT committee's (typically more than 1 per year), was a Master National President, served on the RHTAC, trained numerous dogs himself, judges numerous times every year, and you can find him to discuss how big a prick he is pretty much any weekend at a training day or HT sitting in a gun station. He gets a little miffed when a guy like yourself sits back in the gallery and watches a pro run the dog. While I also do not know you, I can get a pretty good picture of your involvement in the sport since you do not judge, almost every HT picture of your dog is with Chris Akin and you basically stated you like to sit in the gallery. This is exactly why the other thread concerning people using their real names and "pelts" continues to live. We have two examples, the clown Bubba and yourself.
> 
> /Paul


Paul...I'm sure you're right! This has probably gotten out of hand. If you'll re-read my posts, you'll see that one of the reasons I have enjoyed this sport is because of the GREAT people I've met during my limited involvement. I'm sure that Bubba would probably be one of them. He has quite a pedigree himself and I wasn't trying to impugn that in any way. I do, however, take issue when he unilaterally made judgments about me with any knowledge to support them. I would also ask that you not do the same thing. I'll just say this and I'll quit. Each persons circumstances are different and not EVERY person who opts to utilize a professional trainer/handler is the same. It isn't fair to generalize and lump us all into a single stereotype. MOST IMPORTANTLY....I haven't intended to offend anyone...just trying to participate by adding my two-cents worth. In any event, NOTHING I say or have said should reflect negatively on Chris Akin. These are my words, not his.

Jim Spagna


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Hope you don't judge
> 
> /Paul


he is an HRC guy primarily.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spag said:


> Each persons circumstances are different and not EVERY person who opts to utilize a professional trainer/handler is the same. It isn't fair to generalize and lump us all into a single stereotype.


That is true. I say, it is all good.

At NETNRC we limited the last Master at 60 dogs, because we simply did not have the grounds easily to do two flights at the same time, even though the grounds we do have are excellent. However, we have never had that many entries, so it shouldn't be a problem getting in even if we continue to do so. Please come!

If you want to run your dog and then sit in the gallery and watch, that is fine by us (unless you are a club member). If you want to sit and watch your pro run your dog, both you and the pro are welcome. If you want to help out, we sure won't turn that down but it isn't necessary. We have a great club and put on fun events--many of our hardest working members have NEVER run a dog in any of our events. Also, if you enjoy a refreshing adult beverage at the end of the day but forget to bring your supply, just find any member's truck and help yourself to what is in the cooler. We are never, ever, in short supply in that area.

Our FTs are fun also--if you like to marshal the Amateur, please come since that is the one job that everyone in the club hates to do. In fact, since this post has turned into a shameless plug anyway, we are having a Pat Burns/Andy Attar seminar the weekend before our Fall FT in October. You could come up for the seminar, stay and train with a group Pat is putting together for the week and then have Pat available to coach you during the FT the next weekend.

However you like to play the game, it is okay by us. We appreciate the entry fees very much and try our best to be good hosts for the weekend


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> That is true. I say, it is all good.
> 
> At NETNRC we limited the last Master at 60 dogs, because we simply did not have the grounds easily to do two flights at the same time, even though the grounds we do have are excellent. However, we have never had that many entries, so it shouldn't be a problem getting in even if we continue to do so. Please come!
> 
> ...


I appreciate that and have to say that your attitude/perspective is more in tune with the VAST majority of people in the sport that I have met. Thanks!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Spag said:


> No sir...not saying that at all! I have just been participating in the discussion. I offered a couple of opinions and defended what appeared to be an exercise in pro bashing...and, I must add that I thought I did so without being critical or rude to ANYONE or flaming them for their opinion. Then...out of the blue...there appears this clown who is laboring under the mis-apprehension that he knows me, all about me, my participation in hunt tests, and, apparently, every other aspect of my life. He swore at me and told me I wasn't welcome. I took exception to his ignorant mis-characterization and responded. I didn't say that I don't like being told what to do nor that I only run HT's without helping. The point is just that...I didn't say and he hasn't a clue. The old saying comes to mind..."It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speaking and removing all doubt." He, obviously, took the latter option.



I wasn't being critical. I was just curious. I do think that some treated you harshly here.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

a close friend works on his personal improvements once and a while and he calls it, "his kinder, gentler Dave". Pals went through a similar personal growth period of attempting to live her life free from cursing, curse words and negativity. In both situations, it only took a group of dedicated friends a couple of days(or less in Pals case) of intervention to get them both back to being the people whom we loved and missed during their brief stints at "personal growth and improvement". 

It's because we're all family here and care about each other so much that we'd do this for one another. Bubba has the same demeanor. Sometimes, the kinder gentler fella comes out and other times we get him back as his normal self we've come to appreciate and love so dearly.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> a close friend works on his personal improvements once and a while and he calls it, "his kinder, gentler Dave". Pals went through a similar personal growth period of attempting to live her life free from cursing, curse words and negativity. In both situations, it only took a group of dedicated friends a couple of days(or less in Pals case) of intervention to get them both back to being the people whom we loved and missed during their brief stints at "personal growth and improvement".
> 
> It's because we're all family here and care about each other so much that we'd do this for one another.* Bubba has the same demeanor. Sometimes, the kinder gentler fella comes out and other times we get him back as his normal self we've come to appreciate and love so dearly*.


Kinda like Jekyll and Hyde, 'cept with bubba its Richard and "Dick"

john


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Spag said:


> I appreciate that and have to say that your attitude/perspective is more in tune with the VAST majority of people in the sport that I have met. Thanks!


I do get what you're saying. In theory, a club "hosting" a trial should be able to do just that ... host. They should be able to field the players to put on the show and the "guests" could come enjoy the weekend and return the favor at their home trial.

Back in the day, that was more common. I even remember a lot of the time, local club members would refrain from running their own dogs in order to better be available to work.

But it's not theory and the real world is not perfect any more. If you look around at a trial, you'll notice a great many of the workers have gray, scruffy beards, walk with a limp, can't stand up real straight and say "Huh" a lot. Not enough young, tough kids interested in the sport to replace the old ones that are dying off. So the fact is, if these games are going to continue, let alone run smoothly and efficiently, when a blind-planter or a bird-thrower is needed it is nice to see a few folks in the gallery jump up and be counted.

Just sayin'

JS


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Spag said:


> Paul...I'm sure you're right! This has probably gotten out of hand. If you'll re-read my posts, you'll see that one of the reasons I have enjoyed this sport is because of the GREAT people I've met during my limited involvement. I'm sure that Bubba would probably be one of them. He has quite a pedigree himself and I wasn't trying to impugn that in any way. I do, however, take issue when he unilaterally made judgments about me with any knowledge to support them. I would also ask that you not do the same thing. I'll just say this and I'll quit. Each persons circumstances are different and not EVERY person who opts to utilize a professional trainer/handler is the same. It isn't fair to generalize and lump us all into a single stereotype. MOST IMPORTANTLY....I haven't intended to offend anyone...just trying to participate by adding my two-cents worth. In any event, NOTHING I say or have said should reflect negatively on Chris Akin. These are my words, not his.
> 
> Jim Spagna


No reflection on pro's or I'd have to look in a mirror. Pro's handling dogs is obviously something bubba and I don't agree on. therefore since he's clearly wrong in the pro discussion I help myself to his adult beverages any chance I can. That being said I have always believed everyone, including pro's should help out at tests someway. I give up handling fee's by encouraging my clients to come run their own dogs. Some tests I donate my bird throwers. At times I'll only enter 2 dogs and then go man a station. Many of the Pro's do these types of things and nobody but the club ever knows, they just see em running dogs. There's a ton of ways to help out, great when people do what they can.

/Paul


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Wow a Master test in Colorado with a limit of 60 MH dogs closed 4 days after open. 4 Pros with 40 dogs and the rest are club members or local club members. Any club member snoozing on this one can not get in their own clubs tests ..... but at the same time we will need them to help out.

BTW, I do not have any issue with Pros .... I am just curious what dynamic has occurred in the past two years to drive this new change .... I know the AKC test number limit rule change and I also I heard from a good source a year ago that since HRC was limiting the number of dogs per handler (8), most pros decided to run more Master tests without limits per handler.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Joe Brakke said:


> Wow a Master test in Colorado with a limit of 60 MH dogs closed 4 days after open. 4 Pros with 40 dogs and the rest are club members or local club members. Any club member snoozing on this one can not get in their own clubs tests ..... but at the same time we will need them to help out.
> 
> BTW, I do not have any issue with Pros .... I am just curious what dynamic has occurred in the past two years to drive this new change .... I know the AKC test number limit rule change and I also I heard from a good source a year ago that since HRC was limiting the number of dogs per handler (8), most pros decided to run more Master tests without limits per handler.


This is pretty easy to figure out;

-when did the AKC roll out the MNH Title?

Of the dogs on the Pro's trucks, 27 have the MH title.

37 out of 60 dogs, total, have the MH title.

The MN has become a HUGE cash cow for the AKC because of how dogs are qualified to attend, and the perception that an MH titled dog is of lesser quality than an MNH titled dog when in fact the MNH title is in a lot of cases a measurement of how deep the owners pockets are.

What you are witnessing is the evolution of the game, that is all. There are going to be around 800 dogs qualified to run the MNH this year. That represents a good chunk of the people running Master tests at this time, and they seem to like it. It's neither good nor bad - it just "is".-Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I hate it when people resent the factual obvious. When the factual obvious is pointed out by one person and someone else gets mad that person shouldn't get the panties tangled up. Although, some folks who've been doing the same thing the same way for 20+ years and complain about the results then, complain about the offered solution pretty much guarantee a stagnation.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Joe Brakke said:


> Wow a Master test in Colorado with a limit of 60 MH dogs closed 4 days after open. 4 Pros with 40 dogs and the rest are club members or local club members. Any club member snoozing on this one can not get in their own clubs tests ..... but at the same time we will need them to help out.
> 
> BTW, I do not have any issue with Pros .... *I am just curious what dynamic has occurred in the past two years to drive this new change .*... I know the AKC test number limit rule change and I also I heard from a good source a year ago that since HRC was limiting the number of dogs per handler (8), most pros decided to run more Master tests without limits per handler.


The dynamic was that clubs asked for the ability to limit master entries & this because the AKC was otherwise arbitrary that if a club didn't limit entries and the field reached 90 dogs, they were obligated by rule to immediately get a new set of judges. Many clubs found it very difficult (& not cost effective) to find another set of judges 10 days prior to the event so they opt for the limited field.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I wasn't being critical. I was just curious. I do think that some treated you harshly here.


Actually...yes. Someone ASSUMED that they knew what went on in my "planet"....they have NO idea! Someone said that, because of the conclusions that they leapt to, that I am not allowed to express my opinion nor am I "welcome"! I took offense to that. There are some other things that have popped up but I am just trying to figger out the rules. I want to participate but I don't want to be unwelcome. I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are.

Jim Spagna


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Spag - you a member of a MN club and if so have you been on the HT committee or acted as Chair?


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

EdA said:


> It sounds like the amateurs who run and financially support hunt tests have lost control of their sport to professional trainers who depend on amateurs for their livelihood.
> 
> Tail Wagging The Dog Regards


Ed you have hit the nail on the head!

The way to sort this out is some clubs dropping their membership in the Master National Retriever Club. As Grandaddy pointed out Master tests are a break even proposition at best for most clubs. It's time for a lot of clubs to take a long hard look at whether or not to continue their involvment with the MNRC. Is continued membership in your clubs members best interest or not? The way it sounds for a lot of clubs with limited resources, it isn't.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> Ed you have hit the nail on the head!
> 
> The way to sort this out is some clubs dropping their membership in the Master National Retriever Club. As Grandaddy pointed out Master tests are a break even proposition at best for most clubs. It's time for a lot of clubs to take a long hard look at whether or not to continue their involvment with the MNRC. Is continued membership in your clubs members best interest or not? The way it sounds for a lot of clubs with limited resources, it isn't.


I'd guess a large number of MN clubs have field trial roots and much of the active, working, contributing membership - have MN dogs.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> I'd guess a large number of MN clubs have field trial roots and much of the active, working, contributing membership - have MN dogs.


Be careful not to over estimate the number of MN dogs in a club. I can count ALL of the participating MN dogs in our club over the last 20 years on ONE hand.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> Be careful not to over estimate the number of MN dogs in a club. I can count ALL of the participating MN dogs in our club over the last 20 years on ONE hand.


You have a Golden. Golden club? ;-)

I am not over -estimating the MN dogs, my point is active, working, test/club contributing members in a MN club - probably appreciate running their own test venues as a MN club.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> You have a Golden. Golden club? ;-)


Actually all breed, including fluffy dogs. (and we are a field trial club)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

So what problem is solved by MN clubs without a lot MN member interest, dropping out? 

We're a MN club we we welcome the extra entries. We also like being able to manage entries if needed.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Be careful not to over estimate the number of MN dogs in a club. I can count ALL of the participating MN dogs in our club over the last 20 years on ONE hand.


Ah honorable Swampcollie .... that is it. The club can take this back if that is what they want. Just opt out of the MN membership! The test will become more of the club's and local's test again rather than the monster test for pro entries. Our club seriously looked at opting out of the MN membership when they decided to increase membership fees but they pulled back on that idea at the time. The argument to stay "in" was "what will happen to our entries that are driven by MN campaigns. Well we now know what happens to our entries if we stay in the MN.

3 years ago the club decided to hand out MN pins to members that passed a MN test, I think we handed out pins to two or three different folks in the club over the past three years. Just an example of the numbers of club membership that go to that level. BTW, they deserved the pins.

You are right, the MN changes in prestige and the title has been a game changer.

It will be interesting how clubs evolve from here, do they become an empty shell that its only purpose is to hold a test or two each year or will it be a gathering of like minded folks sharing their excitement for a sport?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Threads like this always amaze and amuse me... People put on their saint hats with their holier than thou attitudes ..... When we have all seen them at their worst. Just got my chuckle for the day!


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Spag - you a member of a MN club and if so have you been on the HT committee or acted as Chair?


Regrettably....no.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Spag - you a member of a MN club and if so have you been on the HT committee or acted as Chair?


r u ? have you? if so which club? in my case the answer to all the questions is yes I was. 
Committee-yes Chair-yes, Pres-yes, VP- yes, Board-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes,........... 

You anonymously weigh in A LOT on a lot of topics, 22 times on this one alone, I think it is about time for you to identify yourself..


john

John Fallon


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Sounds like the HT world has a "good problem" on their hands. So any disgruntled HT'ers entries close on monday (maybe tuesday) for NW retriever club's summer field trial, we won't turn you away and would welcome you with open arms.....BYOB...& dog


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

john fallon said:


> r u ? have you? if so which club? in my case the answer to all the questions is yes I was.
> Committee-yes Chair-yes, Pres-yes, VP- yes, Board-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes,...........
> 
> You anonymously weigh in A LOT on a lot of topics, 22 times on this one alone, I think it is about time for you to identify yourself..
> ...


Easy there, Barney. Don't want Sheriff Andy to take your badge.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> r u ? have you? if so which club? in my case the answer to all the questions is yes I was.
> Committee-yes Chair-yes, Pres-yes, VP- yes, Board-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes, help-yes,...........
> 
> You anonymously weigh in A LOT on a lot of topics, 22 times on this one alone, I think it is about time for you to identify yourself..
> ...


Apparently both credibility police and posting police. Give it a rest John, it's an active thread and something I understand. You're welcome to disagree with my opinion if you like...which has absolutely no bearing on anything but my opinion. Using my name doesn't change the context of my opinion, unless of course, that's the only way you are able to make judgement of an opinion, idea or comment.

Long story short, I'll be the boss of me.

Yes - I am, yes I have chaired, yes I have been on the HT committee, yes a club officer and yes a BOD member.

Yes I care about tests, yes I care about the MN, yes I care about people, especially in our club pursuing the Plate. Yes I care about peoples experience at our test and yes I have thrown birds all weekend while not running my own dog in the venue. 

My question for Spag was aside from his entry fee - what else does he contribute to the sport locally or nationally. I am trying to gauge/understand his perspective and opinions, I don't need his home phone to do so.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> My question for Spag was aside from his entry fee - what else does he contribute to the sport locally or nationally. I am trying to gauge/understand his perspective and opinions, I don't need his home phone to do so.


I appreciate your asking rather than leaping to unfounded conclusions about my "planet". I wasn't aware that there was so much animosity against those of us who "just sit and watch" but I would respectfully request that we all not be painted with the same brush. Even though I have limited experience, I have already realized that we are all different and have different circumstances. That generalization appears to be pretty prevalent among those who don't like pros and dislike their clients even more.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Spag said:


> I appreciate your asking rather than leaping to unfounded conclusions about my "planet". I wasn't aware that there was so much animosity against those of us who "just sit and watch" but I would respectfully request that we all not be painted with the same brush. Even though I have limited experience, I have already realized that we are all different and have different circumstances. That generalization appears to be pretty prevalent among those who don't like pros and dislike their clients even more.



My sense of it is that there is not animosity per se to pros and their clients. Rather, there is animosity towards anyone - pro or not - that doesn't do their fair share to making events happen. There is great deal of work involved in preparing for an event - hunt test or field trial. A lot of work in having the event. A lot of work in judging an event. I resent people who do not pitch in - pro or amateur. I suspect most other active competitors do too.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Spag said:


> I appreciate your asking rather than leaping to unfounded conclusions about my "planet". I wasn't aware that there was so much animosity against those of us who "just sit and watch" but I would respectfully request that we all not be painted with the same brush. Even though I have limited experience, I have already realized that we are all different and have different circumstances. That generalization appears to be pretty prevalent among those who don't like pros and dislike their clients even more.


Spag -thanks. Ted above put it correctly IMO. It's none of my business to make a judgement on an owner whose dog is running tests and how that happens. Pro, AM, whatever...I don't care. He's also correct about the self-sacrifice that goes into a test or trial and while maybe shallow of me - think those that do should get the biggest weigh-in on how it should work.

I'd just been hanging on your comment:


Spag said:


> Sorry to disagree!!! Don't blame the pros...it's not their fault!!! Let's fix the system. Are limits the answer? Maybe so...maybe not! Limits are not the solution! Finding a way to include everyone is!!!!


And came away wondering what your contribution might be to achieve that goal.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

For people who like to sit and watch...marshall is a good job...


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> My sense of it is that there is not animosity per se to pros and their clients. Rather, there is animosity towards anyone - pro or not - that doesn't do their fair share to making events happen. There is great deal of work involved in preparing for an event - hunt test or field trial. A lot of work in having the event. A lot of work in judging an event. I resent people who do not pitch in - pro or amateur. I suspect most other active competitors do too.


This is pretty much it right there.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Spag -thanks. Ted above put it correctly IMO. It's none of my business to make a judgement on an owner whose dog is running tests and how that happens. Pro, AM, whatever...I don't care. He's also correct about the self-sacrifice that goes into a test or trial and while maybe shallow of me - think those that do should get the biggest weigh-in on how it should work.
> 
> I'd just been hanging on your comment:
> 
> ...


Again, I appreciate the civility that both of you have shown. I could try to explain myself but that would probably just start another flame-fest. I'm not offering excuses but, to be honest, I didn't realize it was an issue until this thread. ne of the things that concerns me is the rush-to-judgment that some people have displayed. For example, in my limited experience, I have met a LOT of great people. Two of those whom have joined me in my sit-and-watch mode are people who are VERY active in the sport. They volunteer, they have worked at tests, they have been club chairpersons, they have chaired hunt tests, and they have judged. They chose to have a pro train & handle their dog(s). I also met a guy at the Grand who trained and handled his own dog. He worked hos butt off at the Grand as a member of the host club. He set his dog with a pro to work out some problems he couldn't fix. That dog is one of the dogs the pro has had at hunt tests and the owner sat and watched. I also met a guy who owns and trains his dog, is active in volunteering but finds, from time to time, that he needs someone to take his dog to hunt tests he can't attend.

My point is...I don't think it's fair to generalize that ALL those owners who sit and watch don't give anything back. I agree that those who participate should get the biggest weigh-in. Hell, they are the people who KNOW the ins and outs...how the system is set up. I apologize if I appeared to be a know-it-all...I'm relatively new to the sport and there is more I don't know that I DO know. I wasn't trying to impose my view. I was just trying to offer an idea or two and express a humble opinion. I also apologize for over-reacting but I found it somewhat offensive when, out of the clear blue sky, I was told to shut up and that I wasn't welcome.

Again, I appreciate and respect your point of view and your civil approach to the conversation. I hope my communication skills have not let me down again and that I have appropriately express my views.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Make no mistake Spag - there's plenty that do train and run their dogs that don't lift a finger, very often. 

I've looked at this entire thread from the Limited Entries perspective. Personally think it's fair to offer a club that option. For many of the reasons stated.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Unlike the Field Trials where the dogs need not be titled to go to the National, so for the most part they are vying for the AKC titles with the National qualifications thrown in as a bonus and having* no disruptive effects*,.... the HT at the Master stake it seems to me that the emphasis is put more on qualifying for the MN than the title of MH, unfortunately this is reflected in the testing so much so that IMO it has compromised the ability of the stake itself to function as originally intended......

A prime example of the tail wagging the dog

john


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Here is an interesting article I somehow stumbled upon about owner-handlers vs. professionals in conformation shows. It looks like that is one game where the amateurs have almost been completely driven out--mostly by the AKC moving to mid-week mega shows and judges looking more at who is holding the leash. Not entirely relevant, but thought it would be interesting enough to share.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

spag,

the ONLY thing that has always chapped me about the folks who sit in a nice chair, relax and watch pros run their dogs for them and do nothing else is this........

*MY WIFE WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO SPEND ENOUGH OF HER MONEY TO BE ONE OF THOSE FOLKS!!!!!!*;-)


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

red devil said:


> just out of curiosity.... What, exactly is the attraction of a ht title you didn't earn yourself?


amen!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> Hang on... 50 minutes to fill one test and 15 minutes to fill another, filled by pros primarily?
> 
> That means someone is getting the heads up as to EXACTLY when the test will be finalized so that can sit and enter multiple dogs quickly.
> 
> ...


Have anyone of you folks out there that are bashing the pros looked into technology??? We enter on a computer HINT HINT ! Wow and I thought I had some clients that were slow! Have ya heard of the saying? Theres an APP for that!


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Troy Tilleraas said:


> Have anyone of you folks out there that are bashing the pros looked into technology??? We enter on a computer HINT HINT ! Wow and I thought I had some clients that were slow! Have ya heard of the saying? Theres an APP for that!


You thread killer you....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I think it would be interesting to see at what time an event is open for entries and how quickly it fills up....I was planning on running an event for sh!ts and grins and I just checked (I want to say) last Thursday and it wasn't open, just checked again and it's full...dang it. Only 16 Pro handled dogs, so it's not like they dominated the entries...one thing is for sure, the limit makes people enter early - the event doesn't close till August 26th - just slightly over a month away! 

Any peeps out there running Mile-Hi Golden who is going to scratch before closing, let me know so I can try and snag your spot....Butthead only needs 2 more passes for his MH...


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Troy Tilleraas said:


> Have anyone of you folks out there that are bashing the pros looked into technology??? We enter on a computer HINT HINT ! Wow and I thought I had some clients that were slow! Have ya heard of the saying? Theres an APP for that!


This may be hard for some people to believe, but there are employers out there that frown on checking EE every 15 minutes just to get entered in an event. So is the person with a _regular_ job SOL? I wonder what people would think if a state employee was surfing the net and doing personal business on the taxpayer dime.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Seems like an unintended consequence of limiting entries, or was it?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

If a HT in our area limited entries to 60 dogs 100% Professional stake is a potential reality. I think the spring test had around 90 entries and I counted 7 non-professionally trained dogs and an additional 7 professionally trained dogs being handled by the owner. There were about 2-3 that were 100% owner trained. Just the facts. No opinion intended to be or insinuated to be interjected.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Handler Error said:


> This may be hard for some people to believe, but there are employers out there that frown on checking EE every 15 minutes just to get entered in an event. So is the person with a _regular_ job SOL? I wonder what people would think if a state employee was surfing the net and doing personal business on the taxpayer dime.


You didn't read the post...there are ways of getting notified electronically if a page your watching gets changed...ie, it becomes open for entry...so us working stiffs can know without having to check every 5 minutes...it's a little thing called technology...

Level playing field regards -


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

PS...state employees do much worse than surf entry express on the Internet...


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Labs said:


> You didn't read the post...there are ways of getting notified electronically if a page your watching gets changed...ie, it becomes open for entry...so us working stiffs can know without having to check every 5 minutes...it's a little thing called technology...
> 
> Level playing field regards -


Do you mind sharing what technology you are utilizing to know when a webpage has changed? Specifically an event page on EE.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

You have to do it for each event page you are interested in...sends an email alert when anything on the page changes....

No more complaining that someone has inside information


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Thanks Labs. I just book marked it. Got shut out on one I wanted just recently. Maybe this will help. JD


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

New to the hunt test thing here, and already getting a sour test in my mouth. I agree how does the test fill up in 90 minutes??? I would love to see a all amateur trained and handled stake. I enjoy the training. I just don't understand how someone sends their dog to a pro from day one, then three years later brags how good their dog is?? It's getting like the horse racing were the owners are smoking fat cigars while "their" horse runs, all while sipping champagne bragging about their portfolios! 

Heck I am a hunter first and foremost, my dog is a hunter first and foremost, this game helps us hunt better! Just my HO, not intended to offend anyone!


----------



## WhisperingHills (Mar 29, 2012)

This has to be one of the whiniest threads ever!


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Labs said:


> www.changedetection.com
> 
> You have to do it for each event page you are interested in...sends an email alert when anything on the page changes....
> 
> No more complaining that someone has inside information


Myself and I am sure at least a few others had no idea. Thanks, this was the most helpful post.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

Backwater said:


> New to the hunt test thing here, and already getting a sour test in my mouth. I agree how does the test fill up in 90 minutes??? I would love to see a all amateur trained and handled stake. I enjoy the training. I just don't understand how someone sends their dog to a pro from day one, then three years later brags how good their dog is?? *It's getting like the horse racing were the owners are smoking fat cigars while "their" horse runs, all while sipping champagne bragging about their portfolios! * Heck I am a hunter first and foremost, my dog is a hunter first and foremost, this game helps us hunt better! Just my HO, not intended to offend anyone!


it's getting like????? no, it has always been like!

dude let me ask how your lessons went today? you are obviously home schooling your children, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of them if you didn't educate them entirely by yourself, right?

how about your home, are you proud of it? a guy like you must have dug its footings by hand, laid the foundation and dorve every nail, right? you couldn't be proud of it if you didn't, right?

the shotgun you hunt with must be a forged damascus double from your own forge and blacksmith shop, right? the stock is one you hand carved from the burled stump of the old walnut tree you planted with your grand dad when you were just a boy. it blew down in the storm of 2006 and was air dried in your barn loft until you judged it suitable, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of it otherwise, right?

the mounted pintail you shot with the federal band in 2,011 looks great on your man cave wall. there is such a great reward in doing your own taxidermy, right?

just sayin', no matter what parts of your life you choose to do or choose not do for yourself, someone does these things themselves and can't understand why you do it differently. 

i had a wonderful homegrown tomato sandwich for lunch today......it could not have been tastier even if i woulda grown the tomatos myself? 

backwater, if you can put a nice portfolio together for yourself, i will bring cigars for the both of us. they will be hand rolled with the tender hands and upon the gentle thighs of a young, exotic cuban maiden. unless you'd rather i roll them up on my own hairy, sweaty legs!!!! lol


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I was all ready to smoke cigars with Mccallie, until that last line........


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

roseberry said:


> it's getting like????? no, it has always been like!
> 
> dude let me ask how your lessons went today? you are obviously home schooling your children, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of them if you didn't educate them entirely by yourself, right?
> 
> ...


Hit it out of the park John, great job!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

roseberry said:


> it's getting like????? no, it has always been like!
> 
> dude let me ask how your lessons went today? you are obviously home schooling your children, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of them if you didn't educate them entirely by yourself, right?
> 
> ...


 Damn!

That was pure poetry!


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

roseberry said:


> it's getting like????? no, it has always been like!
> 
> dude let me ask how your lessons went today? you are obviously home schooling your children, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of them if you didn't educate them entirely by yourself, right?
> 
> ...


Sounds like the old boy hit a nerve. Remember...some of us have seen your training and handling skills.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

roseberry said:


> it's getting like????? no, it has always been like!
> 
> dude let me ask how your lessons went today? you are obviously home schooling your children, right? you couldn't possibly be proud of them if you didn't educate them entirely by yourself, right?
> 
> ...


I made a vow wasn't going to respond to this post as it was getting in the category of duck meat, feathers, 2.3 per trial or 2.578 per trial hunt test available or whatever it was , who cares. This was a great post, too bad we couldn't get together other then phone calls when you were in my neck of the woods. I would like to thank you for your response. Maybe next time we can get together.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

earl, i will be back up there is december/january! it'll be cold but we will def get out then!
jmc

p.s. backwater, not bustin on you, just pointing out another perspective. welcome to rtf!!!!


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

RF2 said:


> Sounds like the old boy hit a nerve. Remember...*some of us have seen your training and handling skills*.


His handling skillls?? Hell... No offense, but I'm ready to see the Cuban maiden's handling skills after reading that!


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

huntinman said:


> His handling skillls?? Hell... No offense, but I'm ready to see the Cuban maiden's handling skills after reading that!


No doubt Bill I don't even smoke but a Cuban maiden? I could puff on that for sure.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

duk4me said:


> No doubt Bill I don't even smoke *but a Cuban maiden? I could puff on that for sure*.


HaHa! Maybe even in a dog house if Leslie looks over your shoulder;-)


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

huntinman said:


> HaHa! Maybe even in a dog house if Leslie looks over your shoulder;-)


Welll that snapped me back to reality. The good thing is my reality is pretty damn good for me not poor Leslie.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

duk4me said:


> No doubt Bill I don't even smoke but a Cuban maiden? I could puff on that for sure.


----------



## Webbs515 (Feb 6, 2010)

Originally Posted by Labs 
www.changedetection.com

You have to do it for each event page you are interested in...sends an email alert when anything on the page changes....

No more complaining that someone has inside information



I tried this website and it isnt working for me. anyone else having trouble with it?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Webbs515 said:


> Originally Posted by Labs
> www.changedetection.com
> 
> You have to do it for each event page you are interested in...sends an email alert when anything on the page changes....
> ...


Doesn't work for me either.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Nor did it work for me...there was a scratch for one of the tests I was interested in and the application did not inform me...


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

FOM or WEEEEEE... If you want to get in on a scratch for the Golden test you need to get a hold of EE and get on the list. I know the CFRC has a wait list and because of a scratch someone got in. Hope you get in where ever you were planning to run!


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Joe Brakke said:


> FOM or WEEEEEE... If you want to get in on a scratch for the Golden test you need to get a hold of EE and get on the list. I know the CFRC has a wait list and because of a scratch someone got in. Hope you get in where ever you were planning to run!


I got in, thanks to Doug for bumping this thread....I went and checked and there was a slot...I snagged it!  

Weeeeee


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Can an amateur compete against pro's? Go look at the MN stats and that should answer it.

/Paul


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> Doesn't work for me either.


Doug it didn't work for me or a friend either. 
I think the guy thought that I should have been aware of this technology, but I will be the first to admit that I am not tech savvy, This thread went on for 29-30 pages before the guy posted that link. This thread had 24.000+ views and he was the first to post it. You would think that if it was common knowledge that this ap was out there, it wouldn't have taken 24,000 views before someone posted this.



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Can an amateur compete against pro's? Go look at the MN stats and that should answer it.
> 
> /Paul


Paul,

I am not talking about competing at the event, instead I was talking about competing to get entered into the event. The three closest hunt tests for me, KC , Missouri Valley and Lincoln all filled up in under an hour. If you look at KC for example (closes Aug 19th) you will see that 2 handlers, Lyle Steinman and Chris Akin have 48 dogs entered. Kind of hard to qualify for the MN when you cannot get entered in MN tests.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Scott Adams said:


>


Could you hook a brother up with a number......smoking.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Edit
I've changed my opinion.
After talking with some folks and gaining a better understanding about the MN qualifications and limited entry mh tests etc. 
It's obvious somethings need to be changed but until all shakes out satisfactorily singling out pro entries is a bit unfair.
So hope it all gets sorted out quickly in a way that works for everyone.
Cheers


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Breck said:


> Both Steinman and Akin should be ashamed of themselves for monopolizing so many limited entry MH events by entering they way they are. No pro I know enters their whole truck months in advance. How lame.
> Those of you left out of these events because of this behavior should be sending messages to their clients.


I am on our hunt test committee and there were discussions to become a MN club next year. I seriously doubt that we will vote to be a MN club next year.


----------



## Robert (Feb 28, 2006)

It's not uncommon (clearly its the case) that a pro receives inside information on when a test will be open for registration. This is a very slippery slop right now. I've talked to several club members where tests have filled up with 96+% pro dogs, in under 20 min, that swear if this happen again they will not support X club or as volunteers throw another duck.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

Handler Error said:


> I am not talking about competing at the event, instead I was talking about competing to get entered into the event. The three closest hunt tests for me, KC , Missouri Valley and Lincoln all filled up in under an hour. If you look at KC for example (closes Aug 19th) you will see that 2 handlers, Lyle Steinman and Chris Akin have 48 dogs entered. Kind of hard to qualify for the MN when you cannot get entered in MN tests.


Not trying to be argumentative but I know for a fact that KC did NOT fill up in under an hour. On June 14th, there were 14 entries. On June 22nd, there were 31. Not sure exactly when it filled up but certainly wasn't within an hour. If there were OVER 8 days for open registration for KC, the theory that there was insider information seems a little lame...no super-duper software was needed...and there was, in fact, quite a bit of opportunity to get entered and qualify for the MN.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Robert said:


> It's not uncommon (clearly its the case) that a pro receives inside information on when a test will be open for registration. This is a very slippery slop right now. I've talked to several club members where tests have filled up with 96+% pro dogs, in under 20 min, that swear if this happen again they will not support X club or as volunteers throw another duck.


There should be someone monitoring that process if it really occurs??? An no one person should have more information on entering any tests than the next person. It should be all equal. I find that issue a bit interesting!!IMO


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> There should be someone monitoring that process if it really occurs??? An no one person should have more information on entering any tests than the next person. It should be all equal. I find that issue a bit interesting!!IMO


I still find it kinda hard to believe that the average MN club, with a limited entry, would purposefully fill their own event beyond capacity, causing an exclusion of regulars and members. If there was that much intent - you'd think the limit would not be set at 60, or even 90 and that the club might otherwise host a Double master. If leaking info to truck-loads of Pro's - the only intent would be entry revenue and limits of 60 don't smell that way.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Are some thinking that pros are told in advance of when an event is open for entries? When Blackhawk's July event first opened (I finalized it), we had two pros enter within the first week it was open. One had about 20 dogs and the other 14, in a 60-dog limited MH. There was no advance notice made to anyone, as far as I know. Prior to close, both pros cancelled all of their entries. I posted notice on the Events page here that we had 52 MH dogs in two flights and room for more. We closed with 52 dogs. If I were sending out reminders of an event, I would remind Club members so the folks who were going to shoot, throw birds, marshal, make lunches, sort dead birds, haul equipment, etc., etc., etc. had a chance at entering.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

When we ran our dog in AKC MH in the mid-90's, we had very large numbers of dogs in the MH stake. It was nothing to start on Saturday morning and finish very late on Sunday, and all the MH dogs were in one flight. I recall one we ran at Fox Valley in WI that had 83 dogs in the Master with one set of judges. These large MH stakes were a lot of work for the Club, the judges, and the handlers. I am guessing that handlers complained to the AKC that the stakes were too large, and dogs were being eliminated and not judged to a standard (just a guess). When the AKC imposed the requirement to split the stakes several years ago, clubs were not asked if they had grounds or members or equipment to comply with the required splits and still host a quality event. I am "guessing" that clubs pushed for limits on entries to balance things out. As someone who has worked at AKC events for a few years, I appreciate the ability to limit entries. It allows our clubs to host better quality events.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

HiRollerlabs said:


> I appreciate the ability to limit entries. It *allows our clubs to host better quality events*.


I don't think BH could ever host anything less than a quality event. Great people, grounds and help and always a good time.


----------

