# Big D...120 Master limit Full in less than 10 min,



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Wow....I think it has officially reached insane status.

my trainer called me to enter my dog, and I was online that minute.

got the master entry selected, and submitted my payment info, and got a red box saying that the test filled while I was putting my stuff in.

i heard thru the grapevine that someone that got dogs in said it filled in 8 minutes.

This is my first master dog....wondering if this is going to be disappointments like this over and over


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

wow
just had a look at HT on the eastern circuit. Every event that is finalized and open for entries and has limited entry masters is sold out except for the one in Kinston. 
The one double master event I saw at the cattle ranch than has no limits had 150+ entries for A & B.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

30 dogs with one handler, wow.


----------



## fetchbrowndog (Aug 6, 2011)

This "limit" thing is a sad thing. I understand why and how's....even both sides of the game. Yet I'm so grateful that for the first time in ten years I DO NOT have a MHr........I'd be so very disappointed to save money, vacation time, family time, etc....to not even get to sign up in the EIGHT minutes given before filling up. Yes I know there are other weekends and other tests....but when you send a dog down for winter training, one would hope to run ONE test during that winter trip. Oh....could keep typing on and on. Many people have said many things, good and bad.....one common.....change is needed.... And as almost attending a funeral and giving condolences to the family.....I feel that is what I'm doing.....so sorry for all involved and so grateful I'm not a victim of this chaos. I hope this year when all meet for new rules and planning.....this issue is the ONLY thing that will be addressed. For we all are guilty of letting this sport get to this stupid level.......no one wins in the end...pros clients am's even the dogs.......


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Yup, B. I was looking at that too.

For you secretaries out there: if a test fills and then you have scratches the week between closing and the test, do those spots just stay unfilled?

Maybe it isn't enough entries to worry about. Will AKC let you fill those spots?

Sue Puff


----------



## Barry Ireland (Feb 18, 2005)

Why would a newbie even want to get involved in the game? If you bust your tail and are lucky enough to get a good dog and then you can't even run a hunt test? I personally think allowing one person to enter 30 is ridiculous. I don't know the answer but is making it impossible to get new people involved.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

In the horse world we took care of this by limiting how many horses a rider(pro or am) could enter in a class. I will say as someone who is looking to get in to this game it is unsettling to think if I get the dog I am looking at I may not even be able to run him unless I get lucky or travel great distances. Making me rethink my goals and what I will put my effort in to.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Here is the thing. Many of us newbies are using a pro to get going in the game. But I don't understand the rule allowing the trainer to enter. It's a huge advantage when one person can enter 30 dogs with one click versus the owner entering them

i don't blame the clubs one bit for wanting to limit the entries especially if the pro isn't bringing help.to the test

there has GOT to be a better way


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

this is taking the little guy right out of AKC hunt tests and wasn't it created for the little guy? 
David Jansma


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Scratches after close cannot be filled.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

djansma said:


> this is taking the little guy right out of AKC hunt tests and wasn't it created for the little guy?
> David Jansma


100 % correct David.....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So...what are some serious, well thought out suggestions for fixing this and still allowing a club to limit entries?


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

FOM said:


> So...what are some serious, well thought out suggestions for fixing this and still allowing a club to limit entries?


Limit entries to ten per handler first day. Then five per day until limit is reached. No double handlers may be listed.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

I've been hunt test secretary several times and entered all the stuff on EE, but this got me to wondering how the "mailed entries" plays into this. I know that almost no one mails their entries anymore, but what if they did? Is there a place in line for them? I could call EE and find out, but thought someone that knows the answer might share with everyone. Thanks.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

What if the Owner had to do the entering, not the handler? If the owner had more than one dog then he/she could still enter with one click but it would eliminate the pro from entering the entire truck with one click


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Also, a standard opening time. Some of us have trouble doing daytime entries due to work. No solution is perfect. Fairness is really what we are talking about.


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

In rally and obedience clubs are now allowed to establish a wait list to fill spots from scratches after the close. I realize that this would not allow a huge number of people in, but might help at least a bit!

seems crazy that one person can enter 30 dogs... 1/2 a flight? Really?


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> What if the Owner had to do the entering, not the handler? If the owner had more than one dog then he/she could still enter with one click but it would eliminate the pro from entering the entire truck with one click


I think that this is the only answer at this point


----------



## Trifecta (May 17, 2013)

Trifecta said:


> In rally and obedience clubs are now allowed to establish a wait list to fill spots from scratches after the close. I realize that this would not allow a huge number of people in, but might help at least a bit!
> 
> seems crazy that one person can enter 30 dogs... 1/2 a flight? Really?


Dammit. Read too quickly... wait list to fill scratches BEFORE close, not after.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

If you have 2 flight of 60 dogs each , separate the flights ,Flight "PRO" and flight "AM". Let the pros battle it out for their spot in their "flight" and the AM's do the same. EDIT This also gives everyone the choice of which dogs they will enter, unlike a "draw"

It seems on average that a test will open 11-13 days before close ,now say at day 7 from close (or whatever) , whatever spots (if any ) left in the AM flight ,become fair game to pro's and am's to fill the remaining spots in the AM flight. If the AM's cant get their sh!t together by then , your out from your own doing.

This will ensure the club has 2 full flights,gives the working stiffs time to sign up (the heart of the sport) and fullfill the pros need to run multiple dogs.(the money of the sport) 

It seems that EE could easily ( probably not) to post the "all in date" predetermined buy the club. In the sign up area add another set of simple boxes to check ,Pro or AM. so "manual labor" would not be needed in placing the appropriate dog/handler to their flight.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> What if the Owner had to do the entering, not the handler? If the owner had more than one dog then he/she could still enter with one click but it would eliminate the pro from entering the entire truck with one click


That might help in some cases, but let's be honest...if this particular test was in fact filled in less than 10 minutes, 99% of the entrants were tipped off (including the pros). The pro calls his client and tells him/her when the test opens...the pro then gets all his dogs in via each owner. Just not sure this would be the answer.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

FOM said:


> So...what are some serious, well thought out suggestions for fixing this and still allowing a club to limit entries?


First thought is - this was done for several valid reasons - clubs overwhelmed by lack of grounds and help seems to be at the front of the line .that being said ,no matter what the next step is , not everyone is going to be happy .Just like not everyone is happy now .Some interesting options have come up.One option from another thread -A true drawing of entered dogs, first 60/120 in ,every body else's checks ripped up... except its all by credit card now . And mentioned here- Limit entries per handler ,thereby limiting a pro's income. Most club delegates I have seen either pay a pro or use their grounds etc...so that won't fly, despite the logic ....And forget planning to run that dog when the weather breaks and enter then , because that test is filled for over a month now. Or enter all you can , and scratch right before the close for your refund..Wear out your secretary quick...
So how does the game prosper ???- A business model says to be successful ,sustainable growth be part of the model ,don't alienate the customer base ,and keep prices competitive.This baby has outgrown the diaper ,who wants to change it ? Because baby is icky and is smelling up the place regards......


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Did a quick count and there can't be more than 10 AM. handlers.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

*Half a flight... What a nightmare... For handler (why would anyone even want to do this???), club, workers, judges...*

I can't remember how I felt about limits before, there's even a slight chance I'm a guilty party with a club vote or something (I don't know what karma kickback I may have coming to me, but I would deserve it).

But I sure know how I feel now.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Here is what Ed Aycock and I proposed for Field Trials

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.


In the event that a handler must scratch from a trial, the dogs designated by the scratched handler may be transferred to a substitute handler, provided that: (a) the substitute handler has not previously entered dogs in the Stake; or (b) with the transfer of the scratched dogs, the substitute handler does not have more than the maximum number of dogs permitted per handler. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 8 dogs in the Stake. Handler S has 5 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler T has 2 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U has 6 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U scratches from the trial for a family emergency. Handler U may not transfer his 6 dogs to Handler S. However, Handler U may transfer his 6 dogs to Handler T. Alternatively, Handler U may transfer 3 dogs to Handler S and transfer the remaining 3 dogs to Handler T.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Moose Mtn said:


> I think that this is the only answer at this point



Or people gotta quit selling lyle washed out trial dogs


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> That might help in some cases, but let's be honest...if this particular test was in fact filled in less than 10 minutes, 99% of the entrants were tipped off (including the pros). The pro calls his client and tells him/her when the test opens...the pro then gets all his dogs in via each owner. Just not sure this would be the answer.


OK then each dog has to be entered individualy, guarantee Lyle wouldn't have gotten all 30 of them entered in 10 minutes. ( and I have no beef with Lyle) just using him as an example because he has the most dogs entered.


----------



## J Hoggatt (Jun 16, 2004)

Todd Caswell said:


> Or people gotta quit selling lyle washed out trial dogs


I had no idea that Lyle owns that many dogs. ? 


For every dog entered – there is at least one or two people (owner/handler) who have an interest in having their dog tested – and have goals for accomplishments. (In my opinion – it’s not a pro vs am thing)
The question is popularity of the HT games and the number of people who want to be involved. –and oh by the way, spend their money how they choose too. Owner & Handler; both are interested in the sport and want to be involved with the betterment of the sport and the breed(s). Isn’t this a good signal on one level?
The fact that a 120 dog test – closed in 8 minutes is troubling to me and leaves me wondering where we are headed. It appears that we are headed toward more hard feelings on the Pro Vs Am thing.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

krapwxman said:


> That might help in some cases, but let's be honest...if this particular test was in fact filled in less than 10 minutes, 99% of the entrants were tipped off (including the pros). The pro calls his client and tells him/her when the test opens...the pro then gets all his dogs in via each owner. Just not sure this would be the answer.


My thoughts exactly. There's absolutely no way 120 entries could be made in 8 minutes without advance notice to certain parties of the date and time of the EE opening. Does anyone honestly believe it was dumb luck those pros were randomly checking EE and got lucky? Something doesn't smell right...

Not only should the opening date and time be posted in the premium, in advance, but EE should control the opening, not particular club members.

In addition, any club that chooses to limit entries should have to forfeit the 200 mile limit for competing events. Afterall, they are effectively saying they cannot accommodate any more than 60 or 120 entries. Perhaps allowing neighboring clubs some of the action would benefit all involved.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> OK then each dog has to be entered individualy, guarantee Lyle wouldn't have gotten all 30 of them entered in 10 minutes. ( and I have no beef with Lyle) just using him as an example because he has the most dogs entered.


I probably wasn't very clear, but what I am trying to say is that said pro lets all 30 of his/her clients know when the test opens and tells each client to be ready and enter their own dog. Most of them would probably get in. Not saying it's ethical, just saying it's possible.


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

Just an observation but this problem seems to be limited to ACK. HRC is not nearly as bad. That would lead one to believe that the problem lies with the MN qualification process. Maybe we should consider having some sort of MN qualifying. That would leave entries at regular tests open for pros and ams alike that were trying to title their dogs.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

wheelhorse said:


> 30 dogs with one handler, wow.


So how does one person enter 30 dogs in 10 minutes but another can't enter 1 in the same time?


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Another factor to less handlers is the negative impact to the local economy. Some of the grounds are public and a selling point is the boost the event will bring in. One handler with twenty dogs is one room in the motel and one meal. Ten handlers with two dogs is ten rooms, ten meals, etc.. This was brought up by a friend, I cannot take credit for the observation.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

If dogs were not qualified to go to the MN on the basis of performance in weekend tests, there would be NO PROBLEM. Or, if any MH could enter the MN, there would be NO PROBLEM.

The Pros are just doing business. Who can blame them? There is a ready market for them and the best are in high demand. They'd be fools not to grow their businesses.

Neither the clubs nor EE can solve this problem.

You ain't see nothin' yet. wait until the fun starts in August when the new qualification period for 2015 starts up. Region 1 has historically had more entries than Region 4, and a lot of region 1 clubs are really limited as to available grounds.-Paul


----------



## pwyxit63 (Jan 3, 2003)

just for conversation, with the following premise: 
(if my premise is wrong, please correct me to aid the hypothetical solution)

-a club holds an event for 3 days primarily due to the supply of labor (workers)

is it feasible, to create a company that would provide clubs the labor to hold events over a longer period of time?

the purpose of this would be to allow pros to run Wednesday/ Thursday, non pros Saturday/ Sunday utilizing the same grounds?

IF it is feasible, what would this company need to provide a club to aid successfully?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

What if the "handler" had to handle the leash from truck to line, and all trucks must be parked an approximately equal distance from the line?

This is somewhat tongue in cheek... But only somewhat...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

J Hoggatt said:


> I had no idea that Lyle owns that many dogs. ?
> 
> 
> For every dog entered – there is at least one or two people (owner/handler) who have an interest in having their dog tested – and have goals for accomplishments. (In my opinion – it’s not a pro vs am thing)
> ...


It's too bad the popularity wasn't growing because of direct involvement by the owners running there dogs.


----------



## J Hoggatt (Jun 16, 2004)

Todd Caswell said:


> It's too bad the popularity wasn't growing because of direct involvement by the owners running there dogs.


Agree

Which could be more clubs/workers/grounds/events, and judges!! ???

I also agree with the MN process/policy is driving this issue.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

pwyxit63 said:


> just for conversation, with the following premise:
> (if my premise is wrong, please correct me to aid the hypothetical solution)
> 
> -a club holds an event for 3 days primarily due to the supply of labor (workers)
> ...



I am liking the business model..... Hire 6-8 high school kids over he summer. Get a truck and travel trailer to haul them around in..... Could even have a few pointed judges on the crew, they can rotate judging and being life gunners. Come complete with test dogs, wingers holding blinds etc..... Charge 1250 per day/flight for Master stake 700 for lower stakes. the club doesn't have to supplying thing, but if they want to run a stake or two they can as well. Think how much smoother tests would go if the guys working it did it 4-5 days a week? Not only that but then pros could conceivably judge the am stakes on the weekend. If after a certain deadline the pro flights are not full, ams eligible, if after a certain time from am flights not full, pros allowed to draw for remaining slots on Friday Saturday flights.......


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I stand by my statement that pros have no business handling in hunt tests but I understand we've gone too far down that rabbit hole so the only way to maintain the intent of hunt tests is to at least give priority to the amateur. This is what I said in the other thread:


> Amateur owner/handler entries open a few days before Pro's can enter. Again, the "little guy" should ALWAYS have priority or we've lost the entire point of a hunt test.


The only other option that makes sense to me would be to limit entries to a number(3) on the first day then open it to however many the club wants each day after that. Heck, even the pros might like that when their clients get into bidding wars to make fido one of the first 3 dogs. 
Frankly I'm a little surprised that there are folks throwing ideas around that either favor the pro or put them on equal ground with the am. This is a HUNT TEST! They were never intended to involve pros.


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

First 24 hours after opening ... entry restricted to untitled dogs (not yet MH).

Next 24 hours ... entry restricted to dogs not yet qualified for MN.

Unrestricted after that.

This would give priority to those seeking the baseline title, no distinction between pro or am. Secondly, this gives everyone else a 24-hour "heads-up" after the initial opening so everyone has a fair shot to be ready at their keyboards for the big entry surge.

Jim


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I posted something along those lines on the other thread and someone asked how that was fair to the owners whose dogs were with a popular pro...... The untitled dogs might not get in if the pro was trying to qualify a string of MN dogs..... I guess to me there are two options then, or three. Get a different pro, run your own dog, or have the pros have assistants running some of the dogs....... All three would get more people in the sport.... Either more pros having dogs to run, more owners running there own dogs, or some young assistant trainers getting some time on the line.....


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

I want to watch somebody with 30 dogs have to honor!

J.O.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

pwyxit63 said:


> just for conversation, with the following premise:
> (if my premise is wrong, please correct me to aid the hypothetical solution)
> 
> -a club holds an event for 3 days primarily due to the supply of labor (workers)
> ...



There are organizations that handle the whole kit and caboodle in the show world (MB-F, for example). However dog shows are way more lucrative and grounds are not really an issue. We do hire bird boys--basically a donation to the ROTC organization which brings volunteers--is a real bargain. Paying full freight, would be pretty expensive.


----------



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

I will mention Bryan College Station was full I believe January 25th or around there with a 180 limit master. This particular test closed yesterday and if you watched throughout the day there were enough scratches to get entered. Last night was still full as of late, but today I see it ended up at 172. 

Having to enter 5 weeks before the test on this one just to get in then the cooler weather and not getting some of the newer running master dogs in the water enough may have been reason for that many scratches as well? Seems like you can get in to some of these if you watch for scratches.

The way I look at the limit the only people that win are entry express cause they keep the 4.50 on all scratched dogs and all the new dogs that took those places!


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Each day, limit each entry-express account to only being able to enter one dog per venue, do this each day until the venue is full. Then let people enter in case of scratches. (Since I only run one dog I kind of really like this idea...


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I have been in the hunt test game for many many years. I run, serve on 2 boards, judge, been a hunt test chair, train 3-4 days/wk. Took many lumps early on. Drove home on sunday more frequently with a lesson than with a ribbon. Took my dogs through JH, HR, SH, HRCH, and MH. My current dog is ready to do the Master. As we were working our way up through the levels with this dog, I began to see more and more pro-handled dogs in the lower levels..including Junior. I was amazed that people were willing to pay to have a dog trained and handled to a JH. 
Last fall I went to enter my dog in her first master at my home club where I work and am on the board. I found that 2 pros had 48 dogs in our master and the test was full. I went and worked at the test, but didn't much like it. Felt I was subsidizing those people that stay home and write checks while I was shut out.
Now what? My options seem to be: take up bowling, stay strictly with HRC, jump up to field trials, continue as is and risk not being able to get in the tests and go work for those check book trainers.
I am not anti pro.. most all those guys are really nice guys trying to earn a living. However they are in a profession competing with my hobby. 
I have also watched the bar get raised over the years as a result of these full time paid trainers, making it even tougher for those of us that just want to take our duck dogs out and get a ribbon.
I don't really understand the satisfaction some of you get from having someone else training your dog and calling you on sunday night to tell you that your dog got a ribbon.
If it were up to me, my club would get out of the master national member classification. But, I also understand that we have driven so many Am's out that we probably wouldn't have enough entries to pay the bills.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

achiro said:


> I stand by my statement that pros have no business handling in hunt tests but I understand we've gone too far down that rabbit hole so the only way to maintain the intent of hunt tests is to at least give priority to the amateur. This is what I said in the other thread:
> 
> The only other option that makes sense to me would be to limit entries to a number(3) on the first day then open it to however many the club wants each day after that. Heck, even the pros might like that when their clients get into bidding wars to make fido one of the first 3 dogs.
> Frankly I'm a little surprised that there are folks throwing ideas around that either favor the pro or put them on equal ground with the am. This is a HUNT TEST! They were never intended to involve pros.


I agree with this 100%. This is a game created and designed for Amateurs. Pros earn their living by training dogs and people. When the time comes to see what they have learned, let the pros step back out of the way. I am not anti pro, I am pro growing a great sport by bringing in new people. Leave the FT's and SRS to the pros. I can always step up to run with them if I want to without destroying the programs. This issue is a monster created by ego and greed. Makes me want to puke.


----------



## bruce (May 18, 2004)

Just a couple of quick thoughts then I'll go back into hibernation. I cannot help but believe that somewhere in Atlanta in a conference room is a man with a smile on his face saying "told you so". The solution to the fairness question could be for the opening date and time to be published to all in advance of electronic registration ... just my buck minus 98 cents worth... Now back to hibernation...


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

A talk I listened into the other day says pros have some else do their entries. My guess that someone else is a geek who runs a bot. The only way I can see an event filling in such short times as we are seeing is a bot. 

My solution?

#1Bot prevention is those funny squiggly characters you have to decipher and enter before you go on to the next step in the order or whatever. 

#2Then an open time and date listed 3 days before opening.

T said "First 24 hours after opening ... entry restricted to untitled dogs (not yet MH). Next 24 hours ... entry restricted to dogs not yet qualified for MN. Unrestricted after that."

I like his idea there. 

The other thought I liked was only 1 entry by same handler per day. That could fail but could be blocked by only listing one handler per dog, not owner, co owner, pro like some do.


----------



## Jeannie Greenlee (Apr 15, 2009)

> Just a couple of quick thoughts then I'll go back into hibernation. I cannot help but believe that somewhere in Atlanta in a conference room is a man with a smile on his face saying "told you so". The solution to the fairness question could be for the opening date and time to be published to all in advance of electronic registration ... just my buck minus 98 cents worth... Now back to hibernation...


Hmmmm....That's what Jerry Mann said to me when I talked to him about this subject.


----------



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

djansma said:


> this is taking the little guy right out of AKC hunt tests and wasn't it created for the little guy?
> David Jansma


This is the reason I am now looking for a FT prospect pup now. I will finish my current dogs SH, but after that ya all can have this HT stuff. I'm not going to deal with all the you need to know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy to let you know when a Hunt Test MH event entry opens up on entry express.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

Observations from a person only experienced pointing dog games (they only wish they had these kind of turnouts):

1. Why on earth would your Parent Club pollute a "Standard" (pass/fail) title with "Competition" (i.e. MN qualifying) ? 
a. If you want "more" than a MH then FT should be the next place to compete..
2. I agree with Bruce ! If you are going to use electronic entries.. THEN you should publish Open/Close entry dates ahead of time (like when AKC approves the test)
a. This eliminates the "someone knew in advance" conspiracies (which are probably true fwiw)

Finally just some random thoughts and I'll go away...

First you all (Retriever enthusiasts) do realize this is a consequence of what is effectively a GREAT success ? I mean I'm looking at these tests (difficulty) and FT's and the dogs are virtually impeccable ! When so that many dogs have that degree of natural ability, trainability and expert handling things become very difficult to differentiate. So you must either make the standards more difficult (now it becomes totally a GAME) or become very nit picky (technical term for negative) with the judging... 

Point being is the success of breeding, training methods and dedicated folks like those on this board that really should take a bow ! This is a product of your success !

So my .02 is that MN should be something different to qualify .. some other stake/test not the traditional test... or maybe.. just move on over to FTs ? Seems redundant to me....

Obviously on all sides there should be some limitation on number of dogs per handler... Ted and EdA 's proposal looks very reasonable IMO  

Best,


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> Not only should the opening date and time be posted in the premium, in advance, but EE should control the opening, not particular club members.


Just a note on this, my event and judge's panel has been "pending" since the 7th of this month, this was after all my judge's jumped through all their hoops. I've even sent an email to the AKC asking why my event has not been approved, to no reply as of yet. I haven't called yet, but plan to. So putting a "opening date" is not really practical. Anyone who wants to argue that can take over the HTS duties from me!  And as I've stated before, as the HTS for my club, I do plan to let the membership know when I will be opening the event, which will be in the evening so they can enter after work. Hopefully all the members will listen to my advice of entering as soon as it opens if they think they want to run Master.



Dan Wegner said:


> In addition, any club that chooses to limit entries should have to forfeit the 200 mile limit for competing events. Afterall, they are effectively saying they cannot accommodate any more than 60 or 120 entries. Perhaps allowing neighboring clubs some of the action would benefit all involved.


I don't know if I totally agree with this, I do on principle, but how do we know as a club that we will max out? It could hurt the club who has to limit numbers due to grounds.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

If there are bots being used, removing them would be the first order of business. Then, it seems like the simplest thing to do would be to set a standardized time for tests to open on EE. For example, a test would have to open on EE at 8AM on the Monday that is 6 weeks before the test, or some such. That way, if you know the test date, then you know when to be ready to enter. If that doesn't help, then I think you have to start limiting daily registrations or something like that to fix the problem.

I don't really want to get into the pro vs. amateur debate except for this: it has been said that tests need the pro entries to fill them up. I haven't yet competed in any master events, so my question would be whether that was actually true, particularly in the southeastern part of the country. Does anybody have any empirical evidence one way or the other? The anecdotal evidence from this thread seems to suggest there are a lot of amateurs out there who would like to run their dogs but can't get into the tests, at least in some places. I live about an hour from the Cattle Ranch, so it is hard for me to envision limited grounds after dealing with that embarrassment of riches.

I commend clipper for working the test even though he couldn't even enter his own club's test, but I wonder how long that will last.



jacduck said:


> A talk I listened into the other day says pros have some else do their entries. My guess that someone else is a geek who runs a bot. The only way I can see an event filling in such short times as we are seeing is a bot.
> 
> My solution?
> 
> ...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

freezeland said:


> This is the reason I am now looking for a FT prospect pup now. I will finish my current dogs SH, but after that ya all can have this HT stuff. I'm not going to deal with all the you need to know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy to let you know when a Hunt Test MH event entry opens up on entry express.


Better get a tin foil hat. If you believe in conspiracies, you will love the FT gallery


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

RookieTrainer said:


> If there are bots being used, removing them would be the first order of business. Then, it seems like the simplest thing to do would be to set a standardized time for tests to open on EE. For example, a test would have to open on EE at 8AM on the Monday that is 6 weeks before the test, or some such. That way, if you know the test date, then you know when to be ready to enter. If that doesn't help, then I think you have to start limiting daily registrations or something like that to fix the problem.
> 
> *I don't really want to get into the pro vs. amateur debate except for this: it has been said that tests need the pro entries to fill them up. I haven't yet competed in any master events, so my question would be whether that was actually true, particularly in the southeastern part of the country. Does anybody have any empirical evidence one way or the other?* The anecdotal evidence from this thread seems to suggest there are a lot of amateurs out there who would like to run their dogs but can't get into the tests, at least in some places. I live about an hour from the Cattle Ranch, so it is hard for me to envision limited grounds after dealing with that embarrassment of riches.
> 
> I commend clipper for working the test even though he couldn't even enter his own club's test, but I wonder how long that will last.


Bolded by me.

I'd think it is a per test basis (mainly the traveling circuit as they all want 60 degree or more water). In post #20 I think it would make it equal for the AM's and ensure full tests for the clubs. Without everyone having to revisit EE once per day to enter multiple dogs.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

These solutions all fix a problem that doesn't exist unless clubs limit entries. Clubs limit entries for two main reasons. #1 lack of grounds. #2 lack of help. Most of us don't have 2-3 hundred acres groomed for retriever events so we can't help this. Most of us can call the club president or hunt test chair & volunteer to work. I doubt a single person is turned down.;-)


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

FOM said:


> Just a note on this, my event and judge's panel has been "pending" since the 7th of this month, this was after all my judge's jumped through all their hoops. I've even sent an email to the AKC asking why my event has not been approved, to no reply as of yet. I haven't called yet, but plan to. So putting a "opening date" is not really practical.


You're right Lainee, I've been there and done that too. Judge, Secretary, Committee, Event Chair, live gunner, thrower, blind planter, marshall, coordinator, worker bee, etc. Sometimes AKC can take forever to approve the judging panel and the event, however, once the Secretary is notified that it is approved, I feel they could update the premium to say when etries will be opened and give folks a few days to a week to find out, before opening the event.



FOM said:


> I don't know if I totally agree with this, I do on principle, but how do we know as a club that we will max out? It could hurt the club who has to limit numbers due to grounds.


Clubs voted for the option to limit Master entries to ensure they wouldn't be overburdened, beyond the capacity of the available grounds or labor. Okay, understood and the limits are doing what they were intended to do. However, if a club chooses to limit the entries, they are saying that they believe there's a chance they would go beyond that limit number. 

However, if a club chooses that "protection", I think it's only fair to the hunt test participant community that other clubs be able to host events the same weekend within the 200 mile radius. That way if the limited test fills, there might be another local option for those who didn't get into the closed test.

Your argument is that the club with the limited test may not max out. I don't think that was the intent of the rule. It was a protection against exceeding a maximum number of entries, not a guarantee of a minimum number of entries. Clubs shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too, at the expense of the hunt test community, as is happening now. Today, there is no consequence for a club making the decision to limit entries, under this proposal, they would have to seriously consider whether they really need the limits or not. I think we might see a few more clubs decide to not limit, if there was the threat of losing entries to a competing club.


----------



## dgreenwell (Apr 16, 2010)

At least one of the non pros that got in was the landowner. That was nice of them. 

I wonder what the going rate is for insider information?

I think if the test is limited then there should be a limit on the number of dogs one handler can enter.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> However, if a club chooses that "protection", I think it's only fair to the hunt test participant community that other clubs be able to host events the same weekend within the 200 mile radius. That way if the limited test fills, there might be another local option for those who didn't get into the closed test.
> 
> Your argument is that the club with the limited test may not max out. I don't think that was the intent of the rule. It was a protection against exceeding a maximum number of entries, not a guarantee of a minimum number of entries. Clubs shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too, at the expense of the hunt test community, as is happening now. Today, there is no consequence for a club making the decision to limit entries, under this proposal, they would have to seriously consider whether they really need the limits or not. I think we might see a few more clubs decide to not limit, if there was the threat of losing entries to a competing club.


We only choose to limit entries cause we do not have the grounds or workers, historically we never even came close to the max:

2013: 57 entered / 11 scratches first time we limited)
2012: 29 entered / 0 scratches
2011: 45 entered / 7 scratches
2010: 34 entered / 5 scratches
2009: 22 entered / 0 scratches
2008: 26 entered / 0 scratches
2007: 21 entered / 3 scratches
2006: 41 entered / 0 scratches

So as you can see historically my club hasn't had to worry about hitting the max, but since the rule was available to "protect" ourselves from having to scramble for more grounds and judges, we implemented it. However we historically have problems drawing numbers from the Denver area and really do tend to have smaller tests, if another club was allowed to automatically ignore the 200 mile rule, it would possibly crush us...why would anyone who wanted to run a HT in the Denver area drive down to our test? So yes I get your point and I can see what you are saying, I'm just offering a different one to consider. 

And it would of been nice to fill those 11 scratches from last year...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I have read this thread with some interest as there are parallels between what is happening now in HT and what had happened with FT.

Now that everyone has pronounced their respective positions - what is the process for implementing change? 

Just curious.

Ted


----------



## phillip1119 (Sep 6, 2011)

> It appears that we are headed toward more hard feelings on the Pro Vs Am thing.


I can't imagine why there would be??? Does anyone really think this many pros just happened to be sitting around on their computers the exact moment entries opened? Talk about preferential treatment. If a pro can enter 10-30 dogs in the time it takes me to enter one then by all means but when their the only ones who know when it opens? Come on.....

The only one who will benefit from the current system is...... HRC/UKC.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I have read this thread with some interest as there are parallels between what is happening now in HT and what had happened with FT.
> 
> Now that everyone has pronounced their respective positions - what is the process for implementing change?
> 
> ...


I am sure the pleas have gone out and the RAC is on top of it and will make it a top priority at the 2022 meeting. 
Sorry for the sarcasm but this has been hashed out over and over again with the FT folks. I dont see anything changing, sad to say.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> I am sure the pleas have gone out and the RAC is on top of it and will make it a top priority at the 2022 meeting.
> Sorry for the sarcasm but this has been hashed out over and over again with the FT folks. I dont see anything changing, sad to say.



Do HT have a RAC, too? If so, who is on the HT RAC?


----------



## Jeff Brezee (Nov 21, 2012)

Ted Shih said:


> I have read this thread with some interest as there are parallels between what is happening now in HT and what had happened with FT.
> 
> Now that everyone has pronounced their respective positions - what is the process for implementing change?
> 
> ...



http://classic.akc.org/pdfs/events/h...iever_HTAC.pdf

Bubba posted this on a similar thread. 

Would I be correct in thinking that all of these reps are active in hunt tests and/or trials?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jeff Brezee said:


> http://classic.akc.org/pdfs/events/h...iever_HTAC.pdf
> 
> Bubba posted this on a similar thread.
> 
> Would I be correct in thinking that all of these reps are active in hunt tests and/or trials?


I don't think they run Field Trials. I assume they run Hunt Tests


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't think they run Field Trials. I assume they run Hunt Tests


You are safe in that assumption. However they are top heavy with MN folks and it seems most of the HTRAC recommendations to the AKC are skewed with the MN in mind and not the weekend tests.

JMO


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

The more things change the more they stay the same. Before EE (not too long ago) and snail mail was in vogue, send your entry in, send post card for running order, hope the trial or hunt test secretary is honest with the drawing, not let it sit for a week past the closing with the Sec., do a "make believe" drawing that no one ever shows up to witness. You might be in the first ten to run on regular basis, FT or HT, then request to run under so and so in a hunt test for whatever reason? Now we fast forward, we streamline it, in field trials we do the DOW, in hunt tests your order is randomly picked. My daughter has been hunt test secretary for several clubs and watched the transition. OK then some "rocket scientist" decides we need to streamline it again , have limited entries , (clubs don't have enough workers for large entries). and away we go in hunt tests. Perfect world, sure. In the field trial game something similar, we now have Opens only or Amateur all-ages together or Opens and a Derby etc. Help with the logistics and work loads., sure.
We have owner-handler Amateurs all-ages to prevent amateur handlers from riding around in pro trucks running all the dogs off the pro truck, sure. Now we have owner handler quals attached to AKC hunt tests to give the folks a good opportunity to "sample" the trials, sure. Now we need more folks, judges, workers etc. We will fix those hunt test pros and field trials pros, sure. Hell we work for them and the trials and hunt tests will go on I assure in smaller numbers, but, will go on as a last resort with hired help, private grounds, and the same available judges! What is the solution? I think we have painted ourselves in a corner with no way out , unless everyone involve steps up to the plate and gets involved.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> We only choose to limit entries cause we do not have the grounds or workers, historically we never even came close to the max:


Same here Here are our historical HT entries. Even though we have great help, we do not have the grounds to split MH so we put the limit in place when it was available even though we had never reached it. We welcome pros and amateurs alike. When we don't get enough entries, many members do like I do and enter a dog or two even though we may prefer not to do so. There is always a competing HT somewhere in the region during the season, but having one right on top would be a bad idea--basically both clubs would lose money.




2010 Fall2011 Spring2011 Fall2012 Spring2012 Fall2013 Spring2013 FallEntry LimitNoneNoneNoneNoneCancelled6060Entries2542274504158Pro Dogs016111802822Amateur Dogs2526162701336


----------



## scothuffman (Nov 14, 2012)

I believe another issue with the multiple dog issue per handler is; some of the guy that have multiple dogs have dog in every catigory and hold up one of the groups. In most cases during theses tests equipment and workers are spread thin so the multiple dog handler is holding up the entire group from going from land to water tests. I don't believe this is fair to the one dog guy either. The running numbers are electronically pulled and not reviewed and or restructured by the committe running the test. Very frustrating waiting an hour for a person to show to run just to move a few hundred yard and set up again for the next series.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> What is the solution? I think we have painted ourselves in a corner with no way out , unless everyone involve steps up to the plate and gets involved.



Earl - What do you think the solution is?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Personally, I like the solution that you proposed for FTs. 

IMO The only other viable solution is "worker reserved slots" coupled with a random draw for the remaining slots like agility.

I'm all for giving the clubs more options. Why not give the clubs either option? Their choice.


----------



## S.Miles (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't think there is a perfect solution. Pros and cons to everything. I personally think dropping the mileage restriction and allowing Hunt tests to conflict with one another would solve a lot of this. The only cons that comes to mind is there will be less tests to run and a reduced judging pool.


----------



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> Better get a tin foil hat. If you believe in conspiracies, you will love the FT gallery


No tin foil hat needed there DoubleHaul, you dont think the Pro folks are getting early alerts as to when the HT's are being opened up for entry on entry express? 

I'll go try the FT's for a while nonetheless. Can't be that much worse as far as the politics and who you know goes to be able to play in the game. Maybe I'm in for a rude awakening.......


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tomorrow I will offer a proposal made to RAC for a limited handler open all age stake that was never given serious consideration, it is equitable in that each handler gets to enter a dog until the predetermined target number is reached and then one more dog. The handlers can submit their dogs in order of priority to be entered.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

FOM said:


> We only choose to limit entries cause we do not have the grounds or workers, historically we never even came close to the max:
> 
> 2013: 57 entered / 11 scratches first time we limited)
> 2012: 29 entered / 0 scratches
> ...


Sure looks like those 11 scratches are a direct result of implementing the limit policy.



DoubleHaul said:


> Same here Here are our historical HT entries. Even though we have great help, we do not have the grounds to split MH so we put the limit in place when it was available even though we had never reached it. We welcome pros and amateurs alike. When we don't get enough entries, many members do like I do and enter a dog or two even though we may prefer not to do so. There is always a competing HT somewhere in the region during the season, but having one right on top would be a bad idea--basically both clubs would lose money.


I can see how removing the mileage restriction might result in lower entries for some clubs, but isn't that what the clubs want? A more manageable test with lower numbers? Seems like clubs want to be able to limit, but also want to fill right up to the limit in order to cover costs. Individuals who don't get into their local test are simply out of luck? Clubs shouldn't be able to have it both ways. How is that fair? In the business world, we refer to this as free-enterprise. If the little local store cannot meet the demands of the masses, Wal-Mart will move in and build a store that CAN handle the demand, and is happy to do so. I'm not proposing to shut down smaller clubs, but perhaps some sort of relaxation of the mileage standard would help. Of course, we're a little more sensitive to it here in MI, since many of the tests in WI are within the mileage limit but are still a 7 hour drive around the darned lake, but AKC doesn't care. They are within 200 miles, as the crow flies.

I DO see your point, from the clubs perspective, but don't agree with it from a participants perspective. Something has to be done.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> I can see how removing the mileage restriction might result in lower entries for some clubs, but isn't that what the clubs want? A more manageable test with lower numbers? Seems like clubs want to be able to limit, but also want to fill right up to the limit in order to cover costs. Individuals who don't get into their local test are simply out of luck? Clubs shouldn't be able to have it both ways. How is that fair? In the business world, we refer to this as free-enterprise. If the little local store cannot meet the demands of the masses, Wal-Mart will move in and build a store that CAN handle the demand, and is happy to do so. I'm not proposing to shut down smaller clubs, but perhaps some sort of relaxation of the mileage standard would help. Of course, we're a little more sensitive to it here in MI, since many of the tests in WI are within the mileage limit but are still a 7 hour drive around the darned lake, but AKC doesn't care. They are within 200 miles, as the crow flies.
> 
> I DO see your point, from the clubs perspective, but don't agree with it from a participants perspective. Something has to be done.


You are delusional if you really think that the mileage limit is really limiting the number of tests. Unlike Field trials, Clubs have no limit to the number of Hunt tests that they can put on in a calendar year. How many are putting on more than 2 a year?

I just don't see clubs clamoring to put on more tests? The people that are putting the tests on are saying enough already! 

I just don't see "the Takers" stepping up. If they won't train and run their own dog now, why would they?


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

scothuffman said:


> ...The running numbers are electronically pulled and not reviewed and or restructured by the committe running the test. Very frustrating waiting an hour for a person to show to run just to move a few hundred yard and set up again for the next series.


Every club has individuals that act as "Administrators" on EE, in many cases it's usually the HT Secretary. Once entries have closed and the electronic draw has occurred, that person has the ability to "manipulate" or "tweak" the draw before finalizing the running order. The administrator also has the ability to move dogs between flights, when more than one flight is offered at a given level (i.e. Master A and Master B). Normal reasons to make adjustments are to separate multiple dog handlers so they have time to get back to the truck and get their next dog, move a client to a different flight so they aren't running under their pro, or vice versa, or put folks who are riding together in the same flight.

I've actually seen where club members, certain pros that the secretary trains with and all of their friends end up in one flight under what most would consider the preferable set of judges and the out-of-towners end up in the other flight. Pass rates turned out as expected. Coincidence? I think not. It's really too bad that the ability to tweak draws is abused by some.


----------



## dckdwg82 (Feb 5, 2014)

All theses threads sum up my decision, I was going to run AKC this round, now not so much Ill stick with UKC.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> You are delusional if you really think that the mileage limit is really limiting the number of tests. Unlike Field trials, Clubs have no limit to the number of Hunt tests that they can put on in a calendar year. How many are putting on more than 2 a year?
> 
> I just don't see clubs clamoring to put on more tests? The people that are putting the tests on are saying enough already!
> 
> I just don't see "the Takers" stepping up. If they won't train and run their own dog now, why would they?


Doug, I'm not suggesting that clubs would put on more tests. But they may choose to move an existing test to a different weekend, if they weren't prohibited from doing so by the mileage limiation. Do I think this alone would solve the issues we are seeing? No. But coupled with other proposed changes, it may help.

I agree with you about the "Takers" and only see the problem worsening if folks can't get entered in their own local tests. Who is going to volunteer to work those events? You don't seriously expect people who aren't able to enter their dog to show up and throw birds all weekend for the pro's that got advance notice of the opening? Do you?

Anybody who doesn't think somebody tipped these folks off as to when the tests would open on EE, is absolutely DELUSIONAL.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

T-Pines said:


> First 24 hours after opening ... entry restricted to untitled dogs (not yet MH).
> 
> Next 24 hours ... entry restricted to dogs not yet qualified for MN.
> 
> ...


Not a bad idea......


----------



## LGH (Oct 20, 2013)

Do all the people hiring trainers to run their dogs in hunt tests bring these trainers to the duck blind with them?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> Sure looks like those 11 scratches are a direct result of implementing the limit policy.


Actually not really - the one Pro who scratched had a very tragic family emergency and only had two dogs entered. Another Pro had two dogs scratched due to injury with Vet cert. The rest were Ams with with Vet certs, except two. And two of the scratches were club members. And all workers who wanted to enter were able to.

Edit - but you wouldn't know these details, just on numbers alone, I'd agree with your initial response.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> I agree with you about the "Takers" and only see the problem worsening if folks can't get entered in their own local tests. Who is going to volunteer to work those events? You don't seriously expect people who aren't able to enter their dog to show up and throw birds all weekend for the pro's that got advance notice of the opening?


No, I don't. That's why I suggested slots reserved for workers. 

That's why clubs wouldn't put on Restricted stakes in Field trials. It eliminated the workers.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Doug Main said:


> No, I don't. That's why I suggested slots reserved for workers.
> 
> That's why clubs wouldn't put on Restricted stakes in Field trials. It eliminated the workers.



And before final close any remaining reserve spots open to non reserve ? That would help ensure the club doesn't miss potential profit.


----------



## duckstruck (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm not sure if this is permissible under the rules.

Would having all entries in by a certain date and then hold a lottery work? 

You could still reserve spots or have early entry for workers and or host members then hold the lottery if something like that is permissible. 

The day of the event another lottery with those in attendance could be held for post entries to fill the spots vacated by scratches.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

I wonder, since it seems like a possibility that with some of these tests some people may be getting a tip as to when to sit by the computer, is there also a possibility of people in the know signing up dogs that they don't intend to run, only to scratch the dogs later (before the close) which would save a spot for their buddy? Hmmm...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

FOM said:


> So...what are some serious, well thought out suggestions for fixing this and still allowing a club to limit entries?


With that amount of success or whatever you want to call it, it seems like the market is screaming for new clubs to form and hold nearby (within AKC rules) hunt test to conflict. I can remember only a few years ago people were saying we better watch out and recruit new people into the sport, or it was going to die. Now I pine for the days of 60 dog Opens and 40 dog amateurs.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Earl - What do you think the solution is?


I think as stated in my post everyone has to step up to the plate and volunteer , throw, gun, marshal, etc. If you are entered you are conscripted to work, no excuses, pro or amateur, no matter the numbers.
It will take awhile, but, I do believe it will be voluntary compliance and let it known entering a hunt test is not an entitlement . I have spent most of my time in the field trial game. Having said that have run, titled, and judged 15 or 20 Master hunt tests in the past , a few Seniors and one Junior. There are others on this forum who are far more experienced in the AKC hunt test game then myself. My daughter soon this year to judge her second Master National is much more learned at judging hunt tests, is a hunt test secretary and has run and titled Master Hunt Test dogs. She is of the same opinion as myself (we don't always agree) 
not a bobblehead. As an example, have watched folks hiding behind their vehicles, watching a pro run their Junior dog, geeze, those are the folks you want to become active in memberships. It's kinda like going to a field trial, having a Pro run your dog in the Open, then you run the dog in the Amateur. You stand around all day as the Pro runs your open dog, then at the Amateur the following day, the entire trial gets held up waiting for you to run the Amateur as the Open has priority. I personally think we are ruled to death and the various Hunt Test Clubs should have some leaway, example determining who is a amateur and who is not or who has the dog running qualifications to judge and who has not, etc etc. AS other have suggested leave openings for workers, if the workers don't work, then it is up to the clubs to monitor it.


----------



## Robert (Feb 28, 2006)

Simple decision for an AM like me. If my one dog doesn't run we sleep in. No throwing or shooting birds, no moving equipment, no getting sunburned or rained on etc.

Couldn't give two sh$t's about the MN.


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

I am against a draw system for the simple reason individuals with multiple dogs will still have a better shot of getting in than the one dog handler. Limiting the number one person can run for a certain time period and then open it after x number of days is fair.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

And that's the problem! we as amateurs work for them at weekend end events..Master National should be another thread.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

EdA said:


> Tomorrow I will offer a proposal made to RAC for a limited handler open all age stake that was never given serious consideration, it is equitable in that each handler gets to enter a dog until the predetermined target number is reached and then one more dog. The handlers can submit their dogs in order of priority to be entered.


Dr Ed
Please help me out here so I understand.
So if you and Ted each have 5 dogs and take a 3 trial spring trip up north. You get to enter all of your dogs in all 3 trials. 
But if I have my dog with a pro who has 16-20 AA dogs with 16-20 different owners. (And all of these owners give back to the game in some way). And if this pro takes a 3 trial fall trip out west my dog has a chance of not being able to enter? Not only not being able to enter 1 trial but not being able to enter any of the 3? 
Could you please explain to me how this idea is fair?
Maybe it would be better to restrict the owners so they can't enter 5 dogs?
Bruce Peterson


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Hambone said:


> After my experiences getting shut out of AKC tests last fall and so far this spring I decided to go back to my roots. I started this game with the HRC in 1976. Today I dropped my dog's UKC registration in the mail and paid my dues to HRC. Entered a couple HRC tests with no problems. Bye bye AKC and your screwed up system. Heck I have more camo than black clothing anyhow.


Robert, I am with you on this. I will go throw birds and move equipment for the HRC'ers.

Hambone, see you out there in HRC events, that's if you make it West and I East. I am with you on this statement! I will try to get in some AKC events this year, I am judging two events now but the door is closing. If the HRC wants me, I will attend a judges seminar there and probably be HRC exclusive. We'll see how this year goes.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

I hope AKC comes up with an answer. Till last fall I had no problem getting into any test I wanted to enter. Now I can't get in to an AKC test. I am going back to my roots. I started this game in 1976 with HRC. Today I dropped my UKC registration in the mail and paid my HRC dues. Entered two HRC tests with no problems. HRC restricts entries to 5 dogs per person max. I will stay with my local AKC club and help out with our test but if things don't change and I can't get in a test . . . well what's the point. This is my main hobby and I train almost every day so I can run my dogs in HT. If I can't get in AKC tests I will have to go where I can get in. No animosity; just the way things are.


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

How about this the first 2 days only a owner can enter but also has to be the handler and open the test after 6:30 pm so most am's are home and also don't open it up until on month before the event 
so we don't have to pay for a whole season of tests in a month
David Jansma


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

HRC restricts the number to 12 per person while giving each club the option of restricting the number to 8 per handler. This is to make it easier and smoother to run all three levels simultaneously. HRC would love to have any/all of you!


----------



## Pat Puwal (Dec 22, 2004)

Back in 2003 I sat in at a Master National meeting as a delegate for my retriever club. They spent a good part of the meeting discussing ways to limit the entries to the Master National - regionals, special hunt tests for qualifying, etc., etc. That year there were around 300 dogs running in the Master National. No significant action was taken except they eventually increased the number of masters to qualify and the entries for the MN now run somewhere between 600 to 700! The sport that started out as a fun thing for the amateur to do with their dog on the weekend has become something entirely different.


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

Pat Puwal said:


> Back in 2003 I sat in at a Master National meeting as a delegate for my retriever club. They spent a good part of the meeting discussing ways to limit the entries to the Master National - regionals, special hunt tests for qualifying, etc., etc. That year there were around 300 dogs running in the Master National. No significant action was taken except they eventually increased the number of masters to qualify and the entries for the MN now run somewhere between 600 to 700! The sport that started out as a fun thing for the amateur to do with their dog on the weekend has become something entirely different.


By what you are saying, it appears that the MN put the burden on the local clubs and it still had an increase in entries.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Hambone said:


> I hope AKC comes up with an answer. Till last fall I had no problem getting into any test I wanted to enter. Now I can't get in to an AKC test. I am going back to my roots. I started this game in 1976 with HRC. Today I dropped my UKC registration in the mail and paid my HRC dues. Entered two HRC tests with no problems. HRC restricts entries to 5 dogs per person max. I will stay with my local AKC club and help out with our test but if things don't change and I can't get in a test . . . well what's the point. This is my main hobby and I train almost every day so I can run my dogs in HT. If I can't get in AKC tests I will have to go where I can get in. No animosity; just the way things are.


Did you mean 1986? HRC didn't start until '84


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

It's equally frustrating as a pro/owner not to be able to get entries in...right now, only have two client dogs ready for Master. But, we have several young dogs (personally) that we planned to run in MH in the future.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

The main reason that I would be in favor of allowing a HTC to have the "Option" to hold an Amateur Owner Handler event is because it would allow the dogs from southern states to be entered in tests while they are still in their area. After the early spring events, the dogs are not as concentrated in one region and the option would, in most cases, no longer be necessary.

I would prefer that the option only be available with approval of the AKC to prevent its abuse.


J.O.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Moose Mtn said:


> Wow....I think it has officially reached insane status.
> 
> my trainer called me to enter my dog, and I was online that minute.
> 
> ...


I think if you look into the VIP program on EE you will see why it closed so fast. Pros push one button and all their dogs are entered. Check it out.
BillB


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

LabskeBill said:


> I think if you look into the VIP program on EE you will see why it closed so fast. Pros push one button and all their dogs are entered. Check it out.
> BillB


So in fact I was wrong with my thought about a bot. It seems EE is the culprit here.

So in all fairness entry opening should be posted for all to see and one dog with one of those squiggly characters thingys be attached to all entries. Snooze and you lose including pros. 

Just not fair to the rest of us.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dan Wegner said:


> I can see how removing the mileage restriction might result in lower entries for some clubs, but isn't that what the clubs want? A more manageable test with lower numbers? Seems like clubs want to be able to limit, but also want to fill right up to the limit in order to cover costs. Individuals who don't get into their local test are simply out of luck? Clubs shouldn't be able to have it both ways. How is that fair? In the business world, we refer to this as free-enterprise. If the little local store cannot meet the demands of the masses, Wal-Mart will move in and build a store that CAN handle the demand, and is happy to do so. I'm not proposing to shut down smaller clubs, but perhaps some sort of relaxation of the mileage standard would help. Of course, we're a little more sensitive to it here in MI, since many of the tests in WI are within the mileage limit but are still a 7 hour drive around the darned lake, but AKC doesn't care. They are within 200 miles, as the crow flies.
> 
> I DO see your point, from the clubs perspective, but don't agree with it from a participants perspective. Something has to be done.


Dan, my point was really that removing the mileage restriction wouldn't do much if anything (except of course as you pointed out, perhaps in MI--maybe a three hour drive time would be better?). For example on our weekend--and the same basically hold true for any weekend during the peak season, there will be a HT in AL, Eastern NC, VA and ours. While these clubs are outside the mileage restrictions, they all pull from different areas as folks go to the closest ones, so they do in fact compete. I am not saying that is bad at all. We limit to protect our available grounds, but hope to fill those slots and do what we can to do so. We call folks and ask for them to bring dogs, we try to make sure they have a good time, cook dinner, etc, and even have club members step up with entries when otherwise they would not enter dogs and just work the HT. However, even if you allowed a club an hour away to hold a HT on the same weekend, I doubt they would do it. It would ensure that neither club made money, so I don't really think there would be much effect. If it was in a region where the clubs could get huge numbers to any test, perhaps--and it might increase entries as folks treated it like a double MH, which always draw huge, but I think that most clubs would choose not to hold one right on top of the ones close by.

You mention the free enterprise system--that would affect competing HTs as the clubs made their decisions to try to maximize their profits. I proposed a very simple dutch auction pricing mechanism earlier that would start with higher entry fees and reduce them every day until the HT is full. Free enterprise at its finest as it lets folks choose HTs where the marginal cost meets or exceeds their marginal utility, just like airline yield management systems or Google's IPO. It was met with howls of protest. I guess dog folks just don't believe in free enterprise


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

One simple fix. No mass entries, could be fixed today. Owner/handler designation again a simple computer change.
Retriever News should be ashamed.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

limiman - coulda been '86, heck that was a long time ago!  

And one upcoming HRC test I entered or was looking to enter stated a limit of 5 dogs max per person. Based on that, I thought 5 was HRC's max entry but I haven't run a HRC test for about 10 years now.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Dan, my point was really that removing the mileage restriction wouldn't do much if anything (except of course as you pointed out, perhaps in MI--maybe a three hour drive time would be better?). For example on our weekend--and the same basically hold true for any weekend during the peak season, there will be a HT in AL, Eastern NC, VA and ours. While these clubs are outside the mileage restrictions, they all pull from different areas as folks go to the closest ones, so they do in fact compete. I am not saying that is bad at all. We limit to protect our available grounds, but hope to fill those slots and do what we can to do so. We call folks and ask for them to bring dogs, we try to make sure they have a good time, cook dinner, etc, and even have club members step up with entries when otherwise they would not enter dogs and just work the HT. However, even if you allowed a club an hour away to hold a HT on the same weekend, I doubt they would do it. It would ensure that neither club made money, so I don't really think there would be much effect. If it was in a region where the clubs could get huge numbers to any test, perhaps--and it might increase entries as folks treated it like a double MH, which always draw huge, but I think that most clubs would choose not to hold one right on top of the ones close by.
> 
> You mention the free enterprise system--that would affect competing HTs as the clubs made their decisions to try to maximize their profits. I proposed a very simple dutch auction pricing mechanism earlier that would start with higher entry fees and reduce them every day until the HT is full. Free enterprise at its finest as it lets folks choose HTs where the marginal cost meets or exceeds their marginal utility, just like airline yield management systems or Google's IPO. It was met with howls of protest. I guess dog folks just don't believe in free enterprise


Forgive my ignorance but what is the mileage restriction? I take it's a restriction on two clubs so many miles apart having an even at the same time? How far/how many miles is the current restriction? How does it work...is it the club that gets the event approved first the one in that gets the restriction placed around it?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hambone said:


> limiman - coulda been '86, heck that was a long time ago!


In your first HT, there were probably only 2 entries and Noah was the judge.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> Forgive my ignorance but what is the mileage restriction? I take it's a restriction on two clubs so many miles apart having an even at the same time? How far/how many miles is the current restriction? How does it work...is it the club that gets the event approved first the one in that gets the restriction placed around it?


Yes. If there is an approved HT, the AKC will not approve another one if the distance between the two is 200 miles, although the club can waive the restriction, if it chooses. It is in the rules under making the application.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Ted -

In your example of limiting the stake to 65 dogs, what happens if, in the first round of 5 entries per handler, there are a total 90 dogs entered.

This would defeat the idea of limiting the stake due to a shortage of resources ... the whole reason for the current situation. If the club is going to limit entries, the initial entry number for each handler should be 1-2 I would think. If they are not going to limit entries, then there's no "per handler" limit at all.

It's interesting that when I started in 1990, we had a limit on each level (MH was about 20 as I recall) and the same problems existed then as now. One club in Florida was known for reaching the limit before they opened as all the club members knew in advance of the entry date and would phone in an entry before the opening and then follow by the form and check later. Unlimited entry was supposed to solve that.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I have read this thread with some interest as there are parallels between what is happening now in HT and what had happened with FT.
> 
> Now that everyone has pronounced their respective positions - what is the process for implementing change?
> 
> ...


The HT community has the RHTAC with delegates from each MN region. The advisory committee accepts rule change proposals from clubs, mulls them over and if it concurs makes a recommendation to AKC Performance Events. Or, anyone can send suggestions directly to AKC. (Good luck with that ) 
Let's remember that it was the clubs' request for the option to limit. If the result creates a problem for clubs, it's up to the clubs to figure out a solution. 
Don't like the one-stroke sign-up on EE? Then don't use EE. Want to limit refunds for scratches before the close? Change your scratch policy. For those not happy because you can't run your dog even though your only effort is to write a check to your handler? Can't help you there.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> Ted -
> 
> In your example of limiting the stake to 65 dogs, what happens if, in the first round of 5 entries per handler, there are a total 90 dogs entered.
> 
> ...



Eric 

Ed and I designed this system for Field Trials. You would need to tweak it for Hunt Tests. 

At the time of the proposal, there were many FT where the Open was 100+ dogs, with multiple pro trucks of 15+ dogs or more. In addition, the Rules required that if you had an Open with 65 starters, the next year you needed to have a Limited, and if with a Limited, you had 65 starters, you needed to have a Special (those rules were not enforced by the AKC). So we used 65 as starting number, given the existing framework. 

We looked at entries and thought that a limit of 5 dogs per handler would work. You could chose a smaller number if you felt it was necessary (say three)

We wanted to:
a) Equalize competition in the Open by limiting entries per handler (think salary cap in the NFL, which allows Green Bay to compete with New York)
b) Get entries down to a manageable size.

Our proposal never made it to the floor for discussion, as the leaders of the RAC at the time vehemently opposed it.

In the FT world, the RAC recently discussed limiting the number of dogs per handler in the Amateur to 3 or 4, for many of the same reasons. That discussion, which was public and addressed at the two most recent Nationals, did not find much public support and has died on the vine. 

In the time since Ed and I made our proposal:
1. More conflicting trials emerged (reducing the number of 100+ dog Opens)
2. The PRTA and more pros began putting on trials
3. The economy reduced the number of dogs on many pro trucks

As a result, I see little likelihood that the proposal that Ed and I made will ever re-surface. But, I do believe that the structure could be tweaked to address the current issue in Hunt Tests.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Bingo place the blame where it should lie! Not pros, not limits, it is the system......



wojo said:


> One simple fix. No mass entries, could be fixed today. Owner/handler designation again a simple computer change.
> Retriever News should be ashamed.


----------



## RadarsDad (Jan 25, 2013)

Robert said:


> Simple decision for an AM like me. If my one dog doesn't run we sleep in. No throwing or shooting birds, no moving equipment, no getting sunburned or rained on etc.
> 
> Couldn't give two sh$t's about the MN.


My sentiments exactly. Especially when the ones I am spending my time and money for, are getting paid to run dogs. I don't get paid a dime! In Field Trials the pros will work the trials if they need too. They put back into the sport! When's the last time you had a pro come out and relieve a gunner? Oh, and by the way, every single one them I have shot with will invite you to come out and train! Just my observations since 1974.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

RadarsDad said:


> When's the last time you had a pro come out and relieve a gunner? Oh, and by the way, every single one them I have shot with will invite you to come out and train! Just my observations since 1974.


Every single HT I have been to had pros take turns out in the field throwing birds, shooting flyers, helping set up and take down the test. Not all of them, of course, but most I know are very helpful. That doesn't count the ones on whose training grounds several events are held.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Every single HT I have been to had pros take turns out in the field throwing birds, shooting flyers, helping set up and take down the test. Not all of them, of course, but most I know are very helpful. That doesn't count the ones on whose training grounds several events are held.



I don't know about HT. But, in the Colorado Circuit, Kenny Trott, Paul Knutson, Bart Peterson, have all thrown and shot flyers for us in the fourth series of the Amateur and the Derby. At the 2013 National Am in Mondovi, Bruce Curtis, Wayne Curtis, the Curtis boys, all worked their tails off. I know at the Coastal Bend trial, I saw Dave Rorem working hard to keep the Open going. And I understand that Paul Sletten helps put on a FT that he doesn't run.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

The pros around here help. Their assistants throw birds etc., too. 

I do see a lot of their clients sitting in the gallery watching the whole time, and I wonder why it doesn't occur to them to offer to help.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't know about HT. But, in the Colorado Circuit, Kenny Trott, Paul Knutson, Bart Peterson, have all thrown and shot flyers for us in the fourth series of the Amateur and the Derby. At the 2013 National Am in Mondovi, Bruce Curtis, Wayne Curtis, the Curtis boys, all worked their tails off. I know at the Coastal Bend trial, I saw Dave Rorem working hard to keep the Open going. And I understand that Paul Sletten helps put on a FT that he doesn't run.


I have to say, I see the FT Pros all helping out on our circuit, can't think of one who doesn't in some form or fashion. Heck PPRC wouldn't make it without the help of the Pros!

However in the handful of HTs I've run or worked I have NOT seen the Pros offer help - either with land, birdboys, hauling equipment. Now granted I only run/work a handful of HTs, so my perspective is skewed.


----------



## bruce (May 18, 2004)

*HT Help Field Trail Limits or Too Many Entries*



DoubleHaul said:


> Every single HT I have been to had pros take turns out in the field throwing birds, shooting flyers, helping set up and take down the test. Not all of them, of course, but most I know are very helpful. That doesn't count the ones on whose training grounds several events are held.


FOM ... You need to get out to more Hunt Tests .... just about everyone I've ever attended the Pro's and Clients have either worked, shot or thrown birds in addition to running their string of dogs....heck a I overheard two "Big Truck" Pro's offer help last weekend and were told that's ok we have enough ... one had even been contacted ahead of time to bring guns and shooters ... they didf but they weren't required ... 

So this topic has wound around from "It ain't fair I got locked out of entering" through How we once proposed to Limit 100 dog Field Trials, to FT are better than HT ... down to them sorry so and so's never offer to help ... While not perfect EE does a great job of working within the rules ... can some policies be updated ... you bet'cha same probably holds true where you work ... so what is the problem? Pro's earning a living, Pro's being proactive in findng out when a test will open? AkC fault for dragging out the approval process [yup it snowed in AAtlanta] ... the problem is that the Sport we love has grown beyound the carrying capacity of grounds, workers, finances ... the rest is just symptoms ... Pray for What ya Want ... Work for What ya Need regards ....


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

bruce said:


> FOM ... You need to get out to more Hunt Tests .... just about everyone I've ever attended the Pro's and Clients have either worked, shot or thrown birds in addition to running their string of dogs....heck a I overheard two "Big Truck" Pro's offer help last weekend and were told that's ok we have enough ... one had even been contacted ahead of time to bring guns and shooters ... they didf but they weren't required ...
> 
> So this topic has wound around from "It ain't fair I got locked out of entering" through How we once proposed to Limit 100 dog Field Trials, to FT are better than HT ... down to them sorry so and so's never offer to help ... While not perfect EE does a great job of working within the rules ... can some policies be updated ... you bet'cha same probably holds true where you work ... so what is the problem? Pro's earning a living, Pro's being proactive in findng out when a test will open? AkC fault for dragging out the approval process [yup it snowed in AAtlanta] ... the problem is that the Sport we love has grown beyound the carrying capacity of grounds, workers, finances ... the rest is just symptoms ... Pray for What ya Want ... Work for What ya Need regards ....


Discussing the issues may lead to solutions. May not, but I doubt if solutions arise from not discussing it.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

bruce said:


> FOM ... You need to get out to more Hunt Tests ....


I'm not arguing that, but dang it, there are only so many weekends in a year! 

It's also why I qualified my comment....I am willing to bet there are HT Pros that help....


----------



## bruce (May 18, 2004)

*Amen*



FOM said:


> I'm not arguing that, but dang it, there are only so many weekends in a year!
> 
> It's also why I qualified my comment....I am willing to bet there are HT Pros that help....


and therein lies the rub ... we either need more weekends or more tests, grounds, workers etc .......... restricting or limiting entries is not the answer IMHO .... thinking about starting a new entry service to monitor and enter the existing electronic entry system automatically ... heck might need to call Shane ... he started EE to make it easier maybe we need AUTO EE signup in advance pay your fee say $10.00 per dog and take your chances fees payable six months in advance with no refund of handling fee ... work fee balance at interest with unsuccessful fees returned 30 days after close ... the American way .. make a lot on a little or a little on a lot ... whose in?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

bruce said:


> FOM ... You need to get out to more Hunt Tests .... just about everyone I've ever attended the Pro's and Clients have either worked, shot or thrown birds in addition to running their string of dogs....heck a I overheard two "Big Truck" Pro's offer help last weekend and were told that's ok we have enough ... one had even been contacted ahead of time to bring guns and shooters ... they didf but they weren't required ...
> 
> So this topic has wound around from "It ain't fair I got locked out of entering" through How we once proposed to Limit 100 dog Field Trials, to FT are better than HT ... down to them sorry so and so's never offer to help ... While not perfect EE does a great job of working within the rules ... can some policies be updated ... you bet'cha same probably holds true where you work ... so what is the problem? Pro's earning a living, Pro's being proactive in findng out when a test will open? AkC fault for dragging out the approval process [yup it snowed in AAtlanta] ... the problem is that the Sport we love has grown beyound the carrying capacity of grounds, workers, finances ... the rest is just symptoms ... Pray for What ya Want ... Work for What ya Need regards ....


Yes and it's not about whether or not pros help. Limited entry hunt tests aren't really the problem, just a solution to one problem. I would argue a bit about participation being up, I'd say it's more pros with more dogs. If anyone doesn't see a HUGE issue with the fact that local amateurs can't run their local hunt tests because pro's filled up the space so fast then I don't know what to say but that is a problem.


----------



## RadarsDad (Jan 25, 2013)

DoubleHaul said:


> Every single HT I have been to had pros take turns out in the field throwing birds, shooting flyers, helping set up and take down the test. Not all of them, of course, but most I know are very helpful. That doesn't count the ones on whose training grounds several events are held.


You are fortunate, Because it rarely happens here except for a few.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

RadarsDad said:


> You are fortunate, Because it rarely happens here except for a few.


I don't know where you run but it must be somewhere in Texas. When Rody Best was running a test in our area, he provided a flyer shooter for at least 2 tests. A very nice, young man who spent an entire day loading stinky mallards in a winger and shooting them.

All the pros I know are more than willing to help.

A more productive conversation is why clubs are limiting tests?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

bruce - when I said there weren't enough weekends, I was more referring to me not having enough weekends! Between FTs, HTs, other hobbies, big game hunting, work and life in general....boy my weekends are pretty much taken up! I'd run more HTs if I had more time...I was some what smart this year and only accepted judging assignments during times that would not interfere with me running my knucklehead! Heck he only needs one more Master pass...good thing I'm the HTS I'll be able to enter him immediately after I open the event! hahahahaha talk about an advantage!  That's about the only benefit for being the HTS!


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

I have to support FOM here. In 10+ years in HTs in CO I have never seen a pro or client toss a few birds or help with equipment. I can say the same for tests I have ran in NM, NE and SD. I've been Chair, Equipment guy, Bird Flunky, Popper Station Grunt and so on. It's always the same handful for each club. Shoot, I 've been yelled at by FOM before so if you are at her test, you better me moving something or planning to move something or else....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Joe - And you loved every single minute of it.....weeeeeee weeeeee weeeeee


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

FOM said:


> Joe - And you loved every single minute of it.....weeeeeee weeeeee weeeeee


That cracks me up, my master in training dog did that today to me in training!!!! WEEEEE Weeeee weeee.


----------



## RadarsDad (Jan 25, 2013)

I will say this,  a certain pro took time out when she could be running her clients dogs and judged a JR and Sr. Kudos to her, and I have a lot of respect for her for that. No beef against Rody but I have never seen a pro supply bird boys and such in HT's since 2004. Could have happened here but I haven't seen it. Alabama must be special.
But to to get back to the issue. There is no good reason for someone to work a test when they can't enter their dog. If you think my dog is going to sit in the dog box and not be able to run while I work a test? When it's eligible to run. Don't think so.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

RadarsDad said:


> There is no good reason for someone to work a test when they can't enter their dog. If you think my dog is going to sit in the dog box and not be able to run while I work a test? When it's eligible to run. Don't think so.


That is an interesting perspective, that folks seem to share. If that is the case, why be a member of a club? What is the purpose of the clubs? If all the club offers is the chance to work the HT, why would you send in your $25 to be a member? It doesn't sound like a very good value proposition since you can run the HT and work the HT without being a member. I think that is an important issue that gets lost in all of this.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

> In your first HT, there were probably only 2 entries and Noah was the judge.


Followed that Ark around for months. Water series was no problem if ya catch my drift. Had to use Dokkens cause there were only two live ducks and they were on the ark. No live flyers. Finally had to cancel the test cause there was no place to run the land series. And don't be givin' me no crap about how that couldn't happen cause there was no HRC before 82! By God I was there and I did it you whippersnapper!


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

RadarsDad said:


> I will say this, a certain pro took time out when she could be running her clients dogs and judged a JR and Sr. Kudos to her, and I have a lot of respect for her for that. No beef against Rody but I have never seen a pro supply bird boys and such in HT's since 2004. Could have happened here but I haven't seen it. Alabama must be special.
> But to to get back to the issue. There is no good reason for someone to work a test when they can't enter their dog. If you think my dog is going to sit in the dog box and not be able to run while I work a test? When it's eligible to run. Don't think so.


You haven't run enough test in TX then. Pros help out all the time.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

RadarsDad said:


> I will say this, a certain pro took time out when she could be running her clients dogs and judged a JR and Sr. Kudos to her, and I have a lot of respect for her for that. No beef against Rody but I have never seen a pro supply bird boys and such in HT's since 2004. Could have happened here but I haven't seen it. Alabama must be special.
> But to to get back to the issue. There is no good reason for someone to work a test when they can't enter their dog. If you think my dog is going to sit in the dog box and not be able to run while I work a test? When it's eligible to run. Don't think so.


To me that's not the right attitude to have either, if it's one of the clubs I belong to and it fills up before I get in, owe well not happy but I still have an obligation to help the club so the club can hopefully make some money and I can continue to enjoy the grounds.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

On the FT side of things I see pro's helping out all the time, even offering befor being asked.


----------

