# Another Master Test sign up missed.



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

Tidewater opened sometime this morning and is full. They premium stated opening date in large caps but no time given. I contacted the event coordinated, he said he didn't know a time as of yesterday but would call prior. Guess he loss my number over night. I checked early a.m. and this morning before starting to work dogs and then at 11:30 its a done deal for that test. Without some real inside knowledge, the job of getting in in moments of opening doesn't seem possible.


----------



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

Event coordinator sends me a message back after I sent him one questioning fact that he would let me know time. In email he stated that by the time he contacted his 23 members that it was already full. If you are going to tell your members wouldn't you do it prior not after the fact. Signing up for MH test is going to only happen with inside knowledge


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Labs Will-Do said:


> Tidewater opened sometime this morning and is full. They premium stated opening date in large caps but no time given. I contacted the event coordinated, he said he didn't know a time as of yesterday but would call prior. Guess he loss my number over night. I checked early a.m. and this morning before starting to work dogs and then at 11:30 its a done deal for that test. Without some real inside knowledge, the job of getting in in moments of opening doesn't seem possible.



Ralph,

While we understand the issue of entering master tests has gotten to the realm of beating a dead horse, We wanted to make sure that our members got first shot at entering the test. As such, we contacted all of our members who were planning on entering the test prior to the opening of the event. As soon as we opened it up, we attempted to enter our own dogs. Even though we opened the test, by the time we entered our dogs, the event was already op to 50 entries. 

At that point, we started to contact others who have supported our events in the past, and within 15 minutes, the event closed up.

While you are correct in your emails to the event coordinator, it sounds like someone got the word out. Unfortunately, we are not able to control what others did after they received the phone call.

It is unfortunate that it has gotten to this level where events are closing in 15 minutes or less, but it is what it is. If you have any other issues, please PM me.

Doug Zahniser


----------



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

My post stated the following facts : that I missed another sign up, that you got to have the inside scoop, that the event coordinate said he would call but didn't , and that i would think his members would be contacted prior not after fact as he stated. I would want my club members and workers to get first shot as well, just don't tell me you are going to do something and don't . I don't operate like that and don't appreciate it. Now let me get back to training dogs.


----------



## i_willie12 (Apr 11, 2008)

This is getting past the point of Ridiculous


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

i_willie12 said:


> This is getting past the point of Ridiculous


Yup, the Master national is now ruining weekend AKC Master test. Now I run Q's until this is somehow fixed or implodes.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i_willie12 said:


> This is getting past the point of Ridiculous



The Ridiculometer has been pegged for some time now. 

Believe it or not, it will be worse in the spring and early summer of 2015 East of the Rockies. In fact, I don't think much will change around region 1 until August 2016 unless the movers and shakers get their heads out of the sand and address the real problem.-Paul


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

The Master national has been ruining weekend tests for years..... Ive never been a fan...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Well, the 2016 MN will be in zone 2, so things might not change for several years if something isn't done.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I quit running most hunt tests after the MN started. Takes the same amount of training time wise for FT. We now see probably 70-80% of dogs in Master are pro trained because of the tricks and complexity of the tests in order to get to the pass level needed at each test. I think someone quoted an AKC rep as 40% roughly. Now it's even worse with limitations on entries. This used to be a game that the weekend person could run. I went to FT and am having more fun and success.

Jeff


----------



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

And to add insult to injury, they have upped the entry fee again this year for the MN.. Went from $350 to $400...


----------



## DSMITH1651 (Feb 23, 2008)

Come run FT we would be happy to have you
Duane


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

kona's mom said:


> And to add insult to injury, they have upped the entry fee again this year for the MN.. Went from $350 to $400...



-Which is $100 MORE than it costs to enter the National Amateur, with the chance of WINNING a very prestigious event. Go figure......-Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Hummmmm....I have a five month old puppy and if things keep up the way they are he may never see a MH title (or maybe even test for that matter). Sad, I guess I will have to pursue FT and do a lot more hunting. That is not so bad for me, but what it will effect is people running my clubs test. I promise you I will not chair or work a test that I cannot enter and I am not the only one who feels that way. Take me and one or two others out of the worker picture and you wont have a test to qualify at.
Pretty F&%*ed up and I still, as I have forever, place the blame squarely on the MN. They have completely ruined the weekend test. Maybe enough people will get fed up with this crap and stop playing with the MN and things will go back to normal.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

paul young said:


> -Which is $100 MORE than it costs to enter the National Amateur, with the chance of WINNING a very prestigious event. Go figure......-Paul


Hunt tests are not for those that need to win. In all fairness, there will be much higher % complete a Master National than a National Amatuer.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

fishduck said:


> Hunt tests are not for those that need to win. In all fairness, there will be much higher % complete a Master National than a National Amatuer.


I think that is part of his point


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I would guess that many of these tests are opened at a time to allow the worker pool to enter. Tests don't happen without workers. Instead of calling & asking for an opening time, call & volunteer to marshal or shoot flyers.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> I think that is part of his point


My point is with more finishers there will be more cost.


----------



## Keith S. (May 6, 2005)

If you are there actively working at the test and are not getting in, there is something seriously wrong with your club. From conversations I've had with people about this, those who do help at the tests, those clubs are making sure they are getting in.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Keith S. said:


> If you are there actively working at the test and are not getting in, there is something seriously wrong with your club. From conversations I've had with people about this, those who do help at the tests, those clubs are making sure they are getting in.


How is that happening with the current system?


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Is EE required to be used for AKC tests?

Can the clubs reserve spots for workers/members with EE before opening?


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> How is that happening with the current system?


Doug, For our club, which just happens to be the club that originated this post, we released the open date, but not the open time, and the only two people who new of an approximate open time were the two who met to make all of the phone calls.

We sent an email out last Thursday notifying all members of the open date, and informed them that we would call them if they sent their name and phone number (to ensure we called correct number). If a member called to inquire about a time of open, I informed them that although we realize that by the way we are doing it, it means members are stuck sitting at a computer and phone waiting for a call, it is a necessary evil that has been created by the change in the qualification for the MN.

We were able to get 14 of the 23 members in to our test, or stated differently 100% of the members that answered their phone were able to enter the event. Heck, the two people sitting at the computer opening up the test did not get in until after 50-60 dogs had entered (and we immediately went to the enter page after finalize was clicked), so if that tells you something about the current process.

Of course, after we got ourselves in, we then gave the courtesy to the non-members who have supported us in the past by stepping up and volunteering at our events a call. And before we even made 2 calls, it was closed.

The reason we did not release the time of opening before the 10 minute phone call is because with today's technology, facebook, twitter, text (to multiple people at one time), it is too easy for people to spread the word with a click of the button, thus increasing the chances that our working members would not get entered.

I am not sure how clubs with a limited double master will handle the stress, panic, and whatever else that goes on with this entry process.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

bjoiner said:


> Is EE required to be used for AKC tests?
> 
> Can the clubs reserve spots for workers/members with EE before opening?


EE is NOT required to be used to enter AKC events, however, the alternative is paper entry, using snail mail, e-mail, and internet entry forms that goes to a person of the club to then handle all aspects, including randomizing, catalogs, etc. 

While it is an option, it is not an option that I would want to be in charge of for our club.


and NO, clubs can not reserve a spot for club members while using Entry Express. The only way for a club to reserve a spot for members would be to turn the club into a pro type set-up, where you get one person responsible for entering multiple dogs with one click, and then collecting all of the entry fees from the members (hopefully in advance) to enter. 

Again, while it is an option, I am not sure I want to do that. Just more hassle than what it is worth, from an organization standpoint.....


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

The only way there will be any relief is for AKC to allow more tests. They need more capacity.


I have heard.

"It's the Master Nationals fault"(yeah they made the weekend tests popular usually a good problem to have).

"It's EE's Fault" (yeah they gave us overworked Secretaries/chairpersons a fairly efficient Entry system making it much less work to provide a weekend test).

"It's not fair" (Right, it's not, but making it fair does nothing to change the fact that handlers are going to complain. A fair entry system just means it's different handlers complaining week to week). 

I talked to Bill Teague this morning. They are working on this. Aside from the obvious designated opening time and waiting list, which I hope is close to being implemented. I am hoping to see more support for AKC to allow Master test only after clubs have met required support of the Junior/Senior. There are clubs that can pull this off. It would not reduce the opportunity for handlers to run Junior/Senior. It would just add more capacity and opportunities for Master test entries. 

Kyle Bertram


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

It would seem a possible solution to the problem is giving each club X number of spaces to reserve for member/workers to enter. If they are not filled in one week, those spots will be opened up at that time.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Kyle Bertram said:


> The only way there will be any relief is for AKC to allow more tests. They need more capacity.
> 
> 
> I have heard.
> ...



Kyle, 

Are you saying that if qualifying one's dog(s) to enter the MN did not depend on multiple successes at weekend tests within a calendar year that local clubs would not get relief from entries closing in minutes for limited tests?

I really think this is what is driving the problem(s) that some clubs are experiencing. 

The test I ran last weekend had over 50% of the Master entry made up of dogs with MH titles trying to qualify for Cheraw in 2015. There were a lot of folks that tried to get into that test but were not early enough hitting the "submit" button.

These problems started concurrently with the advent of the MNH title. I don't think it's a coincidence. -Paul


----------



## i_willie12 (Apr 11, 2008)

Zman1001 said:


> Doug, For our club, which just happens to be the club that originated this post, we released the open date, but not the open time, and the only two people who new of an approximate open time were the two who met to make all of the phone calls.
> 
> We sent an email out last Thursday notifying all members of the open date, and informed them that we would call them if they sent their name and phone number (to ensure we called correct number). If a member called to inquire about a time of open, I informed them that although we realize that by the way we are doing it, it means members are stuck sitting at a computer and phone waiting for a call, it is a necessary evil that has been created by the change in the qualification for the MN.
> 
> ...




Just plum crazy!!! And what would have happened if say only 5 members got entered?? What would that do to your test??


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

i_willie12 said:


> Just plum crazy!!! And what would have happened if say only 5 members got entered?? What would that do to your test??


While the test would have still gone on, it would have put an even further strain on our working members, causing even more gripes from those members (larger than from the ones who gripe about not getting in).....

As they say, the show must go on, however, there was a moment when both the chair and I were sitting there waiting for EE to kick over on whether we would even get in, and yes, the phrase of "If I do not get in, I may not show up", was mentioned......

If it did happen, we would have just been looking for a new chairperson for the next event. not a good thing.


----------



## The Snows (Jul 19, 2004)

Not sure who mentioned it on an earlier thread about this same topic .... but the suggestion came up about the event opening up initially to dogs who did NOT have their MH title so that these handlers would be able to obtain their MH title (these are the people .... particularly newbies you want to keep in the game, not tick them off to go play elsewhere), then a day (or two) later open up to dogs that already have their MH title. 

I know I've been doing computer gymnastics to try to get entries in to "just" finish a title and at this point not worry about qualifying for the MH!


----------



## 2dc (Nov 7, 2011)

I like bubba's idea of reserving X number of spots for the workers of the test.


----------



## dckdwg82 (Feb 5, 2014)

Here is my view from a new guy wanting to get into the game, after reading these post for sometime now im out. Ill just go hunting. Too big of a headache it seems.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Just bad juju on all this- before everone jumps that someone ratted the secret handshake out consider there are applications out there that allow you to know when a change is made to someone like EE. 

For us we will try to be part of the solution and find ways to help. And no that does not mean quitting 
Its just a shame a sport like this - a loss for words
Dk


----------



## SWIPER (Sep 24, 2006)

A way to fix this is the only way to enter is the owner must enter the dog, not the pro or the handler. This way everyone has a fair chance. Also all opening times must be the same.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

The problem is that on one hand, you don't have the capacity in workers or grounds or space to increase number of slots enough to solve this. And, on the other hand, you have the workers not getting into events, which causes them to decide not to work the events, which in turn makes the first problem worse.

What if there was a point system that considers how many events you work - assign each event a certain number of points - say 5 points per flight of an event (so a normal 2 flight weekend would be allocated 20 points). The chairperson for the event can assign those points to their members who work the event, or work to make the event possible, and as you work events, you build up your status/point total. Then you allow the event to open as normal, but at the event closing, you sort the entries by the point totals for the owner plus handler on the dog, and those with the highest totals get in first. That way at least you're protecting the folks who are doing the work, because if you don't who's going to do the work? The folks who get bumped are then more likely to be those who send a dog with a pro and don't help out other than with the entry fee. You'd have to be able to factor in multiple dog entries, but that could be done. Probably too complicated...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

paul young said:


> Kyle,
> 
> Are you saying that if qualifying one's dog(s) to enter the MN did not depend on multiple successes at weekend tests within a calendar year that local clubs would not get relief from entries closing in minutes for limited tests?
> 
> ...


From an EE prospective it would be hard to say this is directly related to the MN, logical because of the MN qualification changes but not really concurrent. One thing is certain though, entries were never an issue before the "limited" master rule was enacted. IMO, its more of a "one thing led to another" which has now led to a series of issues & accusations, none of which are intentional, none the result of some conspiracy. I'm confident there will be further AKC changes & entry changes to help alleviate some issues but as Kyle stated earlier, none of these changes will affect the dynamics of a limited supply in the presence of higher demand. The only way to solve the supply & demand problem is for clubs to offer more master slots through more flights or events or new clubs to form to satisfy the demand & that requires more people willing to work.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

paul young said:


> These problems started concurrently with the advent of the MNH title. I don't think it's a coincidence. -Paul


Exactly! And not only that but the additional MNH titles for each one you pass after the initial titles and the introduction of the Lifetime Achievement Award. The game didn't need these incentives. There have been complaints that the Master National was growing too big back in 2004 and it grew in leaps and bounds without the title as a carrot held in front of the donkey.

If there had to be a title maybe they should have considered that passing at the MN one time deserves the title. If people still wanted to attend MN, they certainly could but there would be no incentive for the absentee owner to continue chasing that title after the first MN pass.

I don't know how many dogs that might take out of the race, but would certainly ease the weekend test entries somewhat, I would think.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Part of the problem is that the limits do not affect everyone. Admit it or not there are groups within the clubs who know when the test will open and are some of the first to get in. Not all clubs post the opening dates and times. This would be a very easy thing to do but they don't. Why not? Last year local club members did not get into a test but people 400 miles away did.

How about this. Out of the spirit of good sportsmanship why don't those who have already qualified for the MN stop running tests? Let those spots be filled by those who need the passes.


----------



## Brad (Aug 4, 2009)

Can I ask why its the MNR club fault. Way I understand it its the clubs decision, We have unlimited entries


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

SWIPER said:


> A way to fix this is the only way to enter is the owner must enter the dog, not the pro or the handler. This way everyone has a fair chance. Also all opening times must be the same.


I have been saying this all along on any post that starts complaining about the test filling.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Brad said:


> Can I ask why its the MNR club fault. Way I understand it its the clubs decision, We have unlimited entries


Ahh, a voice of reason. 
This is an artificial bubble. For those old enough to remember the long lines at gas pumps back in the 70's it wasn't about a gas shortage as much as a fear of gas shortage. So folks with 3/4 tank would line up to get a few gallons, which led to long lines, which led to fears of a gas shortage, which led to long lines . . . 
The limits create an urgency but it is a regional issue. There are 3 tests now open with unlimited entries for those who want to drive out their comfort zone. This past spring NETN only had 27 master entries. Some clubs are offering dbl masters with limited entries which might be financially smart for the club but is against the whole idea of allowing limited entries for those clubs w/ limited resources. (If you can handle 2 master tests of 90 dogs each, you can handle a single master of 180 dogs.) 
Blame EE, the MNRC or the phase of the moon, but it's just human nature at work. Put a limit on something and everyone wants a piece. 
Just chill folks. Or start your own club and manipulate the entries anyway you want.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> Ahh, a voice of reason.
> This is an artificial bubble. For those old enough to remember the long lines at gas pumps back in the 70's it wasn't about a gas shortage as much as a fear of gas shortage. So folks with 3/4 tank would line up to get a few gallons, which led to long lines, which led to fears of a gas shortage, which led to long lines . . .
> The limits create an urgency but it is a regional issue. *So because you live in an area where it's not an issue, there is no problem?* There are 3 tests now open with unlimited entries for those who want to drive out their comfort zone. This past spring NETN only had 27 master entries.* Well, of course. That test was to qualify for the MN in California.* *Let us all know how many entries you get next spring. *Some clubs are offering dbl masters with limited entries which might be financially smart for the club but is against the whole idea of allowing limited entries for those clubs w/ limited resources. (If you can handle 2 master tests of 90 dogs each, you can handle a single master of 180 dogs.) *Sweet mother of Jesus! If you would like to judge 180 Master dogs at a time, be my guest! I, however, have been a judge for way too long and have way too many assignments under my belt to attempt anything that foolish.*
> Blame EE, the MNRC or the phase of the moon, but it's just human nature at work. Put a limit on something and everyone wants a piece.
> Just chill folks. Or start your own club and manipulate the entries anyway you want.


My responses are in bold print....-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Brad said:


> Can I ask why its the MNR club fault. Way I understand it its the clubs decision, We have unlimited entries



I can't make it any clearer than I already have.

They need to qualify the dogs themselves through a series of regional qualifiers and let the weekenders enjoy the game as it was intended. It is NOT all about the MN. Why let a small group dictate the shape of the game just because they see it that way?

I am not against the MN; I just want the MNRC to take full ownership of it.-Paul


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

If you go to EE, you will see that almost every single test east of CO that is opened for entries is full.  There is a test running in Jan 2015 with 120 or 180 dog limit that is already full. Guess you have to plan your MH entries for the year the MN is on the opposite coast.

Dawn


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Wouldn't a lot of people run as many weekend tests as they could to "get ready" for the regional qualifiers?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Wouldn't a lot of people run as many weekend tests as they could to "get ready" for the regional qualifiers?


Some yes, all no. 
It is a MN and limited entry combination that causes the problem. I put more blame on MN qualifying than the limited entry, but as Bob pointed out limit something and you get the problem we have now. People enter sooner because it is limited AND they MAY need to be entered to qualify and may not get in if they don't enter the second it opens. If qualifications were changed (I suggest once a dog qualifies it remains qualified, or at a minimum once a dog passes the MN it no longer needs to qualify) people should not feel as much need to enter limited as soon as they open. If events were not limited people would not fill them as quickly. Yes, to answer Toms question, some will still run, but there should not be the urgency to sit at the computer ready to enter the second a test opens. If you are qualified I don't think most will ho to the extreme to enter events they would not normally enter in order to qualify.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Wouldn't a lot of people run as many weekend tests as they could to "get ready" for the regional qualifiers?



I think it would be a lot more productive to train with like-minded people, enter 1 spring test and another in August. Take note of where your dogs need polishing after each of those and go back to training. Then run maybe one more a couple weeks before the Big Dance for one last assessment before shoving off for pre-national training in the area the event will be held. -Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

bjoiner said:


> It would seem a possible solution to the problem is giving each club X number of spaces to reserve for member/workers to enter. If they are not filled in one week, those spots will be opened up at that time.



Good idea. Club opening for verified club members and a day later for non members. Or just allow clubs to enter their member in advance when they are submitting the paperwork.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Jerry Beil said:


> The problem is that on one hand, you don't have the capacity in workers or grounds or space to increase number of slots enough to solve this. And, on the other hand, you have the workers not getting into events, which causes them to decide not to work the events, which in turn makes the first problem worse.
> 
> What if there was a point system that considers how many events you work - assign each event a certain number of points - say 5 points per flight of an event (so a normal 2 flight weekend would be allocated 20 points). The chairperson for the event can assign those points to their members who work the event, or work to make the event possible, and as you work events, you build up your status/point total. Then you allow the event to open as normal, but at the event closing, you sort the entries by the point totals for the owner plus handler on the dog, and those with the highest totals get in first. That way at least you're protecting the folks who are doing the work, because if you don't who's going to do the work? The folks who get bumped are then more likely to be those who send a dog with a pro and don't help out other than with the entry fee. You'd have to be able to factor in multiple dog entries, but that could be done. Probably too complicated...



Not it a fan of that idea. Some areas only have a handful of test each year and most people don't want to work at other clubs events. Ours hold two test a year and I work both. When I pay hundreds of dollars and drive 6-10 hours to go to a test the last thing I am going to do is throw birds. We never expect people from outside our club to work an event, other than judges of course. 
Many people also just don't have the time to work endless events to earn points so they can enter. The pros and those who are retired or otherwise able to spend every weekend at test will still dominate entries and the average working guy will still be out of luck.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I like Dave's club idea of posting that day one is for club member/workers. Day two open to general public.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

There certainly is a lot of animosity towards the Master National. In my area the people that run are some of the nicest, hardest working members of the retriever community. Take these people out of the equation & the clubs will be hard pressed to put on any test. 

Limits were a brainchild of the clubs & the current difficulty entering is a direct result. What will be the result if these plate chasers no longer need to run weekend tests? Will they still be there to work?


----------



## The Snows (Jul 19, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> If qualifications were changed (I suggest once a dog qualifies it remains qualified, or at a minimum once a dog passes the MN it no longer needs to qualify) people should not feel as much need to enter limited as soon as they open.


Agree ... Particularly if the dog has passed the MN.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

fishduck said:


> There certainly is a lot of animosity towards the Master National. In my area the people that run are some of the nicest, hardest working members of the retriever community. Take these people out of the equation & the clubs will be hard pressed to put on any test.
> 
> Limits were a brainchild of the clubs & the current difficulty entering is a direct result. What will be the result if these plate chasers no longer need to run weekend tests? Will they still be there to work?


With this price increase and the thought of trying to enter 2 dogs in 6 tests next year, I'm not saying you won't see us after this fall, but Randy and my presence will be very limited next spring.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

ALL clubs have limited grounds and help, adding more flights or more tests is not a option for vast majority, most clubs are FT andf HT clubs and alot of them hold 4 events a year and after that the core group is burnt out. I still feel the MN is to blame for this, there have been who knows how many biiitch sessions on RTF,about this and I don't recall a single comment from the MN, I personally have decided not to participate as a handler or a worker at any event that supports the MN.. I'll stick with supporting my clubs at the FT level working and participating, finishing a trial feels much better that passing a HT anyway..


----------



## Ed Bahr (Jul 1, 2007)

Need to have a club host a master event during the master national.......maybe a few could get into that one


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

NEWS FLASH........Long Island has 15 openings and Maine has 10 openings, and if my calendar is correct, these tests would count toward 2015 MN.

The more I read the "expert posters" continued bashing of the MN, the more I realize that they don't have a clue. 

Get a clue...THE PROBLEM IS THE WEEKEND HUNT TESTS THEMSELVES, NOT THE MASTER NATIONAL. 

More to follow.

Sincerely,
Mike Berube


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Ralph, I thought I had an in also but this is the first I heard about it. I checked yesterday but was busy at work today and couldn't get online. Field trails here I come. BS


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Good idea. Club opening for verified club members and a day later for non members. Or just allow clubs to enter their member in advance when they are submitting the paperwork.


With the way some clubs are playing hide & seek with the opening now, you don't think "club membership" would be abused? Who would keep up with "club members", what about friends of club members, otherwise insiders? It is a mess now, this would only lead to the same acrimony we currently see. EE can & will go to a std opening time & date so all interested parties will know when an event opens but EE can't control who members are & an event is either open or not open. Same for owners only entry idea, who will enforce it? It's the tail wagging the dog. FTs & HTs with no limits or junior & senior stakes don't need these rule changes - that's about 80% or more of the total EE entries. So the rules that all the games play by should be changed & software code modified at $200/hr to satisfy the issues surrounding the "limited" master stake?

The solution is more supply needed, no other solution to solve the issue. Things can & are being done to level the playing field for entry but it won't change the core problem. I understand its the same 5% of the participants who do all the work. It's always been that way, in this & every other endeavor I've been exposed to, and all these proposed "solutions" won't solve the problem of limited supply, limited resources & grounds.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Splash_em said:


> With this price increase and the thought of trying to enter 2 dogs in 6 tests next year, I'm not saying you won't see us after this fall, but Randy and my presence will be very limited next spring.


Y'all will always show up to kick my butt in the Q's!! Besides Zach & Gray have to keep Bill in line!!!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Mike Berube said:


> NEWS FLASH........Long Island has 15 openings and Maine has 10 openings, and if my calendar is correct, these tests would count toward 2015 MN.
> 
> The more I read the "expert posters" continued bashing of the MN, the more I realize that they don't have a clue.
> 
> ...


those are your examples? Maine and Long Island? Really?


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

As opposed too..................


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> With the way some clubs are playing hide & seek with the opening now, you don't think "club membership" would be abused? Who would keep up with "club members", what about friends of club members, otherwise insiders? It is a mess now, this would only lead to the same acrimony we currently see. EE can & will go to a std opening time & date so all interested parties will know when an event opens but EE can't control who members are & an event is either open or not open. Same for owners only entry idea, who will enforce it? It's the tail wagging the dog. FTs & HTs with no limits or junior & senior stakes don't need these rule changes - that's about 80% or more of the total EE entries. So the rules that all the games play by should be changed & software code modified at $200/hr to satisfy the issues surrounding the "limited" master stake?
> 
> The solution is more supply needed, no other solution to solve the issue. Things can & are being done to level the playing field for entry but it won't change the core problem. I understand its the same 5% of the participants who do all the work. It's always been that way, in this & every other endeavor I've been exposed to, and all these proposed "solutions" won't solve the problem of limited supply, limited resources & grounds.


let the clubs handle it prior to ever going to EE. Are you insinuating that clubs are dishonest? Club member enter with the club secretary and that goes to AKC with paperwork for event approval (not saying AKC approves entries, just the normal paperwork, the entries are just that advanced entries). Now can you have people join the club in advance to enter the test? Sure but I doubt there will be much of that and hopefully clubs will be honest in handling it. 

More re supply would solve the problem, but that ain't going to happen. You probably know number of entries better than I do, but I suspect there is not a significant number of additional dogs running test the last year or so than there was 5-10 years ago. With basically the same number of dogs entering test you can't point to supply, unless I way off the mark and there are thousands more entries than there were two years ago. 

The he problem does coincide with limited entries and the MN title. Is that causation? I don't know, but I will bet my right testicle the two combined are the majority of the problem.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Mike Berube said:


> As opposed too..................


Who outside of New England is going to either of those? Show me open test that are MN clubs located in TX, AL, GA, WI, CA...... You know places that are not the end of the earth


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> NEWS FLASH........Long Island has 15 openings and Maine has 10 openings, and if my calendar is correct, these tests would count toward 2015 MN.
> 
> The more I read the "expert posters" continued bashing of the MN, the more I realize that they don't have a clue.
> 
> ...



Mike,

Why don't you tell us how many tests you have Chaired, or been Secretary for, or have been bird steward for, or been equipment manager or even thrown a bag of birds for? These are the things that I am an expert at, along with many others in the clubs I belong to, as you well know. Or maybe it's possible you didn't notice all the people in our club that don't participate in the MN working our butts off so that you could earn a paycheck this past weekend. And you have the unmitigated gall to say that WE'RE THE PROBLEM??????!!!!!!

Hell you probably don't appreciate it when I donate a weekend to judge your dogs so you can puff your chest out every fall, either.

It's dollars and cents to you, but it's so much more to me. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE!-Paul


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Who outside of New England is going to either of those? Show me open test that are MN clubs located in TX, AL, GA, WI, CA...... You know places that are not the end of the earth


Well, about 20% of the entries in Maine are from the southern states...a few even from your neck of the woods.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> THE PROBLEM IS THE WEEKEND HUNT TESTS THEMSELVES, NOT THE MASTER NATIONAL.



Your going need some cold hard facts to convince me of this...


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Couple ideas that have lots of holes in them, but what the heck:

1) add a distance rule for the dog/owner - local dogs can enter but dogs who's owners are 200 miles away don't get to enter right away
2) make scratching after ya hit submit painful other than what AKC rules allow and insist on letter from vet, allow HTS to handle all scratches, EE could provide a list of dogs that scratched prior to close

just a few lame ideas...


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

paul young said:


> Mike,
> 
> Why don't you tell us how many tests you have Chaired, or been Secretary for, or have been bird steward for, or been equipment manager or even thrown a bag of birds for? These are the things that I am an expert at, along with many others in the clubs I belong to, as you well know. Or maybe it's possible you didn't notice all the people in our club that don't participate in the MN working our butts off so that you could earn a paycheck this past weekend. And you have the unmitigated gall to say that WE'RE THE PROBLEM??????!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Paul...do you really think that was the context of my post?? That the CLUB was/is the problem? I've always supported the New England clubs with entries, MN or not. Let's face it, you are just a bitter person who has bashed the MN for years...it's right there in your RTF history. Go ahead and run your string of Master National posts and then try and defend those statements in any way. I dare you...but I'm thinking you won't go there...too bad. You continually talk about the good old days...you know, the way hunt tests should be...used to be, in your opinion.

I've always thanked workers, judges, and anyone else associated with ANY test that I participate in for their efforts, including EVERY time I've run under you.

Oh yes, it's so much more to you. I see that now. I stand corrected. Please forgive me. Now let's see all those Master National posts. Put up or shut up! 

As I've said for years, the problem IS the weekend hunt tests. Not master quality tests and not judged to the standard. How many dogs do you think qualify for the Master National every year, that really even deserve a MH title?? Is that a problem with the Master National or the WEEKEND HUNT TESTS?
Is this clear enough for you now?


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> Your going need some cold hard facts to convince me of this...


I don't know you Todd, so don't take my response as sarcastic in any way.
Using the AKC Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, randomly observe as many hunt tests and tell me your thoughts. Master Test design, callbacks and qualifiers.
Attend a Master National and watch what happens in the first two series i.e., the quality of the dog work.
There is a direct correlation between the two...in that a significant percentage of dogs who are at the MN really shouldn't be there...because of the weekend hunt tests.
Sincerely,
Mike Berube


----------



## RJG (Feb 18, 2005)

Some of these ideas sound interesting. I kind of like the idea of Kyle Bertram's about allowing a club to hold just a Master test after JH/SH has been supported. Also like the idea of allowing active club members to enter prior to the opening like Corey said. I realize the limits are part of the problem, but they also help with club's like ours that don't have many judges geographically available and have some land limitations as well. 

And I sure wish that once your dog passes a MN they don't have to qualify again! Would sure make it less stressful and less expensive if one wanted to attend a MN. Where I'm from, our club has 2 HTs (1 1/2 hours away), then there are 3 HTs that are 3-5 hours away and 3 more that are 8 hours away. After that we really have to start hitting the road. Add up the gas, hotels, food, plus test entry fees and it gets kind of expensive.

In any case, I realize that none of these ideas is perfect. I just hope I get into the HT I'm chairing this fall!!!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Mike Berube said:


> I don't know you Todd, so don't take my response as sarcastic in any way.
> Using the AKC Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, randomly observe as many hunt tests and tell me your thoughts. Master Test design, callbacks and qualifiers.
> Attend a Master National and watch what happens in the first two series i.e., the quality of the dog work.
> There is a direct correlation between the two...in that a significant percentage of dogs who are at the MN really shouldn't be there...because of the weekend hunt tests.
> ...


Have never been to a MN and never will but I will take your word for it and agree with you, I have seen dogs get carried at weekend tests that couldn't mark, failed the blind but again were carried because "mathmaticaly" they could still pass if they had a perfect last series, and they did because in the last series it really wasn't a marking test at all it was a "sitting" test with splash birds thrown in there face, they sat there and picked up the floaters and got a Ribbon for below average work in my eyes... Ran a couple tests this summer and seen enough...


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> Have never been to a MN and never will but I will take your word for it and agree with you, I have seen dogs get carried at weekend tests that couldn't mark, failed the blind but again were carried because "mathmaticaly" they could still pass if they had a perfect last series, and they did because in the last series it really wasn't a marking test at all it was a "sitting" test with splash birds thrown in there face, they sat there and picked up the floaters and got a Ribbon for below average work in my eyes... Ran a couple tests this summer and seen enough...


So there it is. It is really very easy to see how the MN has such huge numbers. Your personal experience/observation is right on. Of course, this is Not the case at every hunt test but more than people would like to believe. Add to this the phenomenon of "judge shopping", and the problem just grows, and grows....as in numbers the MN has to deal with.
My solution is a regional MN qualifier with a judging panel assigned by the AKC performance events department....dead silence fills the room:}


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> let the clubs handle it prior to ever going to EE. *Are you insinuating that clubs are dishonest? *Club member enter with the club secretary and that goes to AKC with paperwork for event approval (not saying AKC approves entries, just the normal paperwork, the entries are just that advanced entries). Now can you have people join the club in advance to enter the test? Sure but I doubt there will be much of that and hopefully clubs will be honest in handling it.
> 
> More re supply would solve the problem, but that ain't going to happen. You probably know number of entries better than I do, but I suspect there is not a significant number of additional dogs running test the last year or so than there was 5-10 years ago. With basically the same number of dogs entering test you can't point to supply, unless I way off the mark and there are thousands more entries than there were two years ago.
> 
> The he *problem does coincide with limited entries and the MN title.* Is that causation? I don't know, but I will bet my right testicle the two combined are the majority of the problem.


I know there are several clubs that have played the system by opening their events prior to when the premium stated. I know there are clubs that have opened at unusual hours. Dishonest, maybe not but certainly motivated to provide an advantage to some in the know. I'm all for club members getting a guaranteed entry if they work the event because clubs can't survive without those who work but what about the club members that don't work, should they get that same guarantee? And who will enforce the work for entry rule? What about the pros who bring their birdboys & clients to work an event but aren't members? Is that fair to them? I know first hand several clubs that can't function without certain pros providing BBs & clients to work so is the member rule fair in those cases? The problem is that many of these suggested solutions are not really as black & white as they first appear. Many suggestions would be a nightmare to administer either for the AKC, the club or the entry service or be very costly to implement. But I do know that the core issue is a limit of master slots in certain areas when compared to the demand for those slots. This may vary somewhat from year to year because of where the MN is being held but not much. 

As for numbers, the "limited" master has tended to limit entries while the MNH title has tended to increase the numbers. Overall the numbers for master entries are up slightly & this in the face of a poor economy & rising costs. Interestingly, some clubs have benefited from increased entries where historically they had fewer entries because with the limits in place in other close events it has had enthusiasts running events in locations they might not otherwise.

Without question, there were no entry issues prior to the "limited" master stake. Clubs had big problems dealing with entries over the capacity of the grounds, not enough workers & a scramble to find more judges. So we have now exchanged the unlimited issues for issues associated with the "limited" master. It's just transferred from the club to the owner/handler. The MN qualification changes that led to the MNH title have just further exacerbated the problem & led to vocal complaint by many with varying motivations, pros versus amateurs, owners versus handlers, clubs versus those who want to enter, the AKC and the RHTAC versus the clubs & the entrants & everyone thinking EE could do a better job. When the reality is or should be that all of these groups want to do right by the sport. At the same time growth and interests in the game shouldn't be discouraged in the solutions that eventually will come. No one seemed to envision the issues that would come from allowing a limited master & I hope that all involved will be a little wiser in finding real solutions.


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

David, I'm curious if the data supports greater overall entries compared to years prior to limits? I know prior to limiting events our entries seldom filled 3 complete flights of 60, yet it was still a nightmare for me personally, adding an entire flight and all that goes with it. It seems that now without limits our Fall event would have been close to 250 dogs. 

So in other words, we were able to limit events just in time to avoid a major problem. If handlers think it's tough to enter now, what would they do when clubs canceled events simply because of out of control numbers. I think this would be the reaction. Then there would be even more hysteria causing the future events to gain a snowball effect.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Who outside of New England is going to either of those? Show me open test that are MN clubs located in TX, AL, GA, WI, CA...... You know places that are not the end of the earth


ME is an indication of the problem of false demand. The event filled quickly, and now folks are scratching having found a more convenient venue, changed plans or just decided not to panic. And if you draw a 6 hour drive radius around ME you'll cover a big chunk of population. And to your post, there are unlimited master tests now open in TX and NC.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

paul young said:


> My responses are in bold print....-Paul


1. I live in VA, right in the middle of the "problem." While I've not gotten into every test I wanted, I'm in 4 now and not panicked about picking up 2 more before next August.
2. NETN has historically had low entries. I hope the fall test fills, but I'll be headed south. 
3. Read the rules. Master flight has to split after 90 dogs. What I said was 2 master flights with 180 dogs - 90 each - v 2 master tests of the same dogs. (I'll do the math for you. That's 180 entries, but only 90 dogs.)


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Good Dogs said:


> ME is an indication of the problem of false demand. The event filled quickly, and now folks are scratching having found a more convenient venue, changed plans or just decided not to panic. And if you draw a 6 hour drive radius around ME you'll cover a big chunk of population. And to your post, there are unlimited master tests now open in TX and NC.


Thanks, but while I wasn't clear I was referring to limited test since that was the discussion. You and David are right, no problem, nothing to see here


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Paul...do you really think that was the context of my post?? That the CLUB was/is the problem?
> _._ I've always supported the New England clubs with entries, MN or not. _Entry fees alone do not constitute real involvement. Most of those are paid by your clients anyway. What have you done for the good of the sport? _Let's face it, you are just a bitter person who has bashed the MN for years...it's right there in your RTF history. Go ahead and run your string of Master National posts and then try and defend those statements in any way. I dare you...but I'm thinking you won't go there...too bad. You continually talk about the good old days...you know, the way hunt tests should be...used to be, in your opinion. _How they used to be is not opinion, it is a fact and a matter of record. Why am I bitter? certainly not because of lack of success in the MN. I have never run one and never will, though I have qualified my dogs to attend in the past. Certainly not for lack of success at the local tests, as you well know. I've been blessed to have wonderful dogs and enjoy running them._
> 
> I've always thanked workers, judges, and anyone else associated with ANY test that I participate in for their efforts, including EVERY time I've run under you. _I certainly hope you and all the other participants enjoyed running the tests I and my co-judges have put up. We worked hard to put together fair, challenging tests and were careful to judge them fairly._
> ...


Mike, my rebuttal is in Italics. -Paul

Well everything is in italics; that didn't work out.....


----------



## Swift River (Oct 19, 2007)

I agree with Mike B, the judging of weekend tests is inconsistent with the AKC master standard. Too many dogs get ribbon's for tests that are really senior tests and/or have low standards by the judges who don't want to drop dogs. This makes for more people running tests that aren't ready and more dogs passing and qualifying for the MN. It is not the MN clubs fault that they are so popular. I feel that since it says on the premium that the test is run under the rules and procedures of the AKC, they are responsible for ensuring the judges adhere to the standard. BUT, we all know that isn't going to happen...... heck, they made the problem worse with the lifetime master pass "award". The answer (in one fools opinion) is better weekend judging, judges need better training in bird placement and upholding the Master level standards, not on misconduct and where to park cars. If the AKC won't do their job, then we need to police ourselves somehow...... Nobody wants to be a poor judge, most want to throw a good test, but just don't realize they need some training. They don't know what they don't know. So any suggestions on how we can train judges to be better or how we can police ourselves?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> 1. I live in VA, right in the middle of the "problem." While I've not gotten into every test I wanted, I'm in 4 now and not panicked about picking up 2 more before next August.
> 2. NETN has historically had low entries. I hope the fall test fills, but I'll be headed south.
> 3. Read the rules. Master flight has to split after 90 dogs. What I said was 2 master flights with 180 dogs - 90 each - v 2 master tests of the same dogs. (I'll do the math for you. That's 180 entries, but only 90 dogs.)


What you said was: "If you can handle 2 master tests of 90 dogs each, you can handle a single master of 180 dogs." No problem with my math.....-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Swift River said:


> I agree with Mike B, the judging of weekend tests is inconsistent with the AKC master standard. Too many dogs get ribbon's for tests that are really senior tests and/or have low standards by the judges who don't want to drop dogs. This makes for more people running tests that aren't ready and more dogs passing and qualifying for the MN. It is not the MN clubs fault that they are so popular. I feel that since it says on the premium that the test is run under the rules and procedures of the AKC, they are responsible for ensuring the judges adhere to the standard. BUT, we all know that isn't going to happen...... heck, they made the problem worse with the lifetime master pass "award". The answer (in one fools opinion) is better weekend judging, judges need better training in bird placement and upholding the Master level standards, not on misconduct and where to park cars. If the AKC won't do their job, then we need to police ourselves somehow...... Nobody wants to be a poor judge, most want to throw a good test, but just don't realize they need some training. They don't know what they don't know. So any suggestions on how we can train judges to be better or how we can police ourselves?


That's a problem I agree with you and Mike on; I would like to see the judging improve and be more consistent.-Paul


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Throwing gasoline on the fire if so many are in conflict over MH weekend judging standards and MH qualifiers ---change --run Field Trials and you can really b...h ! HT are Triple AAA ball. Good for many but if you have competitive juices change your field of achievement. HT got what they wanted w/MN . Hoisted on their own petard. I was a backer of AKC HT since 1984 (worker, judge, participant w/MH titles) but my 1st love was FT. My choice and yours as well.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Not really a choice for many Stan. You need time, money, grounds to train for FT. You can get by and even run MH very successfully training a few days a week on limited grounds and staying up north with no water work for 4-5 months, but you will NEVER be successful in FT training by yourself a few days a week on limited grounds and not being able to train for 3-4 months out if the year. I made it to the 3rd series of the Amateur three times but could not get through the water blinds because I had no place to train for 4-5 water re-entries or similar scenarios. Your AAA ball comparison was correct. You won't get to the big time training at sand lot level. I was never a proponent of MN. Felt it would thoroughly ruin the HT venue and it has. It is driving the amateur out of the sport. Many will still play but it will be like FT, retired with money to spare. Those of us that are still working and have limited financial resources are pushed out. Many of us are the core workers for our clubs and are long time judges. When we can't play the game with our own dogs, we will no longer be working for our clubs or judging for other clubs. FT are already seeing this with an extremely limited judging pool. Same will happen to MH level at HT.

Dawn


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Is there an owner handler HT option in AKC?


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

No. It is not competitive, therefore no need to restrict. That will not solve the current problem. It is simply that the MN has increased the demand for MHTests and the clubs and members of the clubs can't meet the demand. Grounds, resources, workers are limiting factors and for most areas of the country, this can't be remedied. You can't run a double 90 dog MH test along with other stakes when your grounds have 2 fields and one pond. In most areas of New England you have no other options for grounds and even the grounds we currently have are being taken away, little by little. You just have to ride out the 2 years the MN is in your area and run MH tests the other 2 years. That is my plan. 

Dawn


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Maybe I'm way out in left field but wouldn't a Fall and then a Spring MN in separate regions help out with at least some of the entry issues?


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

mostlygold said:


> No. It is not competitive, therefore no need to restrict. That will not solve the current problem. It is simply that the MN has increased the demand for MHTests and the clubs and members of the clubs can't meet the demand. Grounds, resources, workers are limiting factors and for most areas of the country, this can't be remedied. You can't run a double 90 dog MH test along with other stakes when your grounds have 2 fields and one pond. In most areas of New England you have no other options for grounds and even the grounds we currently have are being taken away, little by little. You just have to ride out the 2 years the MN is in your area and run MH tests the other 2 years. That is my plan.
> 
> Dawn


I think you mean you can't run 2 groups of 90 dogs for MH - be it 2 flights in the same test or an actual double master.

The only problem with your plan is that when workers are not able to run in the tests because they're too hard to get into, they will in turn not work at the tests. While one of the problems is grounds, the other is workers. The current problems are decreasing the existing pool of workers for these events as well as decreasing the numbers of new workers coming into the pool.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

mostlygold said:


> No. It is not competitive, therefore no need to restrict. That will not solve the current problem. It is simply that the MN has increased the demand for MHTests and the clubs and members of the clubs can't meet the demand. Grounds, resources, workers are limiting factors and for most areas of the country, this can't be remedied. You can't run a double 90 dog MH test along with other stakes when your grounds have 2 fields and one pond. In most areas of New England you have no other options for grounds and even the grounds we currently have are being taken away, little by little. You just have to ride out the 2 years the MN is in your area and run MH tests the other 2 years. That is my plan.
> 
> Dawn


I don't know if the MN not being in your area will make a difference. Now that there are so many folks putting their dogs with a pro (I am not bashing pros here) to get the MH and then qualify for the MN that same pro will be traveling to the MN with a truck full of dogs.

I worked the local HT here recently, but for the first time since 1999 I couldn't enter my dog. Checked ee and Master stakes were full all over New England. It's discouraging and anyone who says the MN isn't the reason has their head in the sand.

M


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Kyle Bertram said:


> David, I'm curious if the data supports greater overall entries compared to years prior to limits? I know prior to limiting events our entries seldom filled 3 complete flights of 60, yet it was still a nightmare for me personally, adding an entire flight and all that goes with it. It seems that now without limits our Fall event would have been close to 250 dogs.
> 
> So in other words, we were able to limit events just in time to avoid a major problem. If handlers think it's tough to enter now, what would they do when clubs canceled events simply because of out of control numbers. I think this would be the reaction. Then there would be even more hysteria causing the future events to gain a snowball effect.


Kyle, I think ARC has the perfect storm this year given the timing of the ARC fall HT & the location of the MN. ARC's HTs have historically been pretty well attended, maybe not always 3 flights of 60 but generally close to 120 dogs or more. I remember Ray scratching some dogs a couple of different years to help avoid adding a flight prior to the"limited". And I'm not knocking the change to allow "limited" masters, that change was needed. Just saying that when clubs had to scramble to support unlimited events, many who don't work the events or others whose clubs rarely faced the problem of adding flights didn't seem to be vocally upset with the havoc the unlimited demand was causing some clubs. I just think with the issue having been transferred to the owner/handler with the limited change, the problem has become personal to a number of enthusiasts.

I keep saying the only real solution is to find a way to satisfy the current demand. That has to involve making more opportunities available. But folks repeatedly say that won't happen because grounds are limited, workers burned out, judges unavailable, etc. I don't disagree but if folks who want to enter are part of the problem, then those folks who currently don't work, who don't participate in clubs should stop complaining & get involved. The alternative is to be frustrated by missing the limited opportunities. As for grounds, I know of properties where club events would be welcome in most of the current high demand areas. So grounds really aren't a major issue, it is an unwillingness of the majority of owner/handlers to get involved in forming new clubs or refusing to help work the events they enter.


----------



## Susan Young (Apr 13, 2004)

Swift River said:


> Nobody wants to be a poor judge, most want to throw a good test, but just don't realize they need some training. They don't know what they don't know. So any suggestions on how we can train judges to be better or how we can police ourselves?


I’ll bite. A good start would be if AKC judges were required to have TRAINED the dogs they run for the passes which qualify them to judge. As it stands now, an AKC judge can qualify by running any dog, no matter who owns it or who has trained it, as long as the dog passes. The new seven year requirement the AKC has added to maintain one’s judging eligibility also lacks the training requirement. If a judge runs a dog he owns but has not trained, or even borrows an FC/AFC and runs that dog to a pass, it shows nothing about his experience setting up a meaningful test, only that he has a friend willing to trust him with a valuable dog, and that he has the means to write a check for the entry fee. Someone who has spent years throwing birds for dogs, and seeing what works and what doesn’t, will hopefully bring that knowledge to test set up day.

HRC requires judges to have owned, trained, and passed dogs at the given level before they are approved to apprentice. NAHRA requires prospective judges to submit an application which asks, among other things, about their history of training a hunting retriever. Only AKC approves judges without ever asking if the prospective judge has ever so much as thrown a bird, as long as the prospective judge has $75 in his pocket for an entry fee.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Two words--field trials.


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

Justin Allen said:


> Two words--field trials.


I am “trying” to get that route .. but I have a 3YO who does not have the water desire/confidence to handle the Qual level blinds... Some dogs are just not FT dogs but that doesn’t mean I dont still want to bring her to her full potential aas a HT dog. I’d like for her to get her MH title. I am fully confident she can do that..... now the race is on to get her entered.  Its all just sad to me.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Swift River said:


> If the AKC won't do their job, then we need to police ourselves somehow......Nobody wants to be a poor judge, most want to throw a good test, but just don't realize they need some training. They don't know what they don't know. So any suggestions on how we can train judges to be better or how we can police ourselves?


I really think that if AKC would make the Advanced Seminar a requirement prior to Judging a Master stake, this might just help some/most understand test set-up among other things need to be a good Master Judge.

Also I know that most clubs will not bring back a "tough" judge because his/her pass % was not high enough...

so you are in a catch22 situation as a judge.. the good ones that judge to the standard are sitting at home cause there pass % is not high enough while the more easier and or less experienced judges are on the road every weekend. its very true just check EE and you see the same judges judging just about every weekend.

I don't believe any of this is a AKC problem nor a Master National problem, " ITS A CLUB PROBLEM" brought on by the clubs themselves.

cheers


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Lots of different viewpoints and almost all have some merit. 
The judging - frankly I like the diversity and the ht judges have a lot of hoopla to dance through to even judge. 
If you run all easier tests and judge shop to find a pass and it does happen well maybe your team falls a bit short of your buddies team but its not about that. When your on the line it about your team against the test. When you walk off hopefully your honest with yourself about how your team did - just my view 

While we're busy digging all the worms out in the pile at least consider 1 more. 
The test limits of 60 ( the number set years ago when fido was not quite
As good) is to large for a decent test. Unpopular i know but you can have 2 good tests but a third is difficult with a 60 number. Its sunday pm, everybody is wanting to leave and there are considerations for others. Add a drive, caring for the hounds and a job on Monday AM and there is desire to get done early. 

Just me 
Dk


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

This whole discussion about judges being too lenient & passing too many dogs is interesting but is counter to the issue of too much demand relative to the supply of slots, which we know currently exists. If dogs are passed too easily, then more dogs would achieve the MH title quicker & in fewer tests. This would tend to reduce demand. I'll agree it inflates MN numbers but that isn't the issue given there is no limit to MN qualifiers. Don't have an opinion about what the MN should do, but I am certain that with the AKC providing the opportunity for master dogs to achieve another title through MN passes, the interest in weekend master tests was rekindled among enthusiasts who have master dogs to achieve the MNH title. Much like pursuing the MH title, IMO the demand will level off for the pursuit of the MNH title once achieved by the backlog of current master dogs (or the pursuit is abandoned). I predict it to be an approx. 7 yr period & thereafter the demand will level off to include primarily those master dogs beginning their pursuit of the MNH title.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Justin Allen said:


> Two words--field trials.


We all know you love us anyway!. Limited access to technical water will keep many from being competitive.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> I keep saying the only real solution is to find a way to satisfy the current demand. That has to involve making more opportunities available. But folks repeatedly say that won't happen because grounds are limited, workers burned out, judges unavailable, etc. I don't disagree but if folks who want to enter are part of the problem, then those folks who currently don't work, who don't participate in clubs should stop complaining & get involved. The alternative is to be frustrated by missing the limited opportunities. As for grounds, I know of properties where club events would be welcome in most of the current high demand areas. So grounds really aren't a major issue, it is an unwillingness of the majority of owner/handlers to get involved in forming new clubs or refusing to help work the events they enter.





Granddaddy said:


> The solution is more supply needed, no other solution to solve the issue. Things can & are being done to level the playing field for entry but it won't change the core problem. I understand its the same 5% of the participants who do all the work. It's always been that way, in this & every other endeavor I've been exposed to, and all these proposed "solutions" won't solve the problem of limited supply, limited resources & grounds.


From where is this growth in tests going to come?

You Ams that are putting on the tests just need to work harder and put on more tests. That's just not working. . . . Nor is it going to happen. IMHO, its driving more Amateurs away!

The huge growth in numbers is all from the Pro run dogs! At the Master last test I judged, there were less than 10 Ams running dogs. One pro was listed as the handler of more than 30 dogs! The other flight had a pro with nearly as many dogs. 

Is it time to give the clubs an option of Owner/Amateur handler Master tests? How about allowing the clubs to the number of dogs that anyone can run in a test? 

If the Pros can't run a truckload of dogs, won't they start putting on their own tests where they can?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Judging is a different issue than the current issue with MH limits. I've run for many years, judging is, was, and always will be, subjective, and in every venue, not just HT. The three MH I've managed to run this season were not gimmee tests. The judging may be open to interpretation by anyone, but, the tests themselves were not substandard to the MH standard. Nor will I be ashamed if MH is all that some of my dogs can achieve. Some simply do not like FT, regardless of their ability. They love HT, so that's what we do. Others love the white coat stuff, so, that's what we do with them. I don't have the means to truly challenge AA just yet, but hopefully by the time my current youngsters are hitting their prime in a few years, we will be in a better position to do so. I use a pro, but I don't want to have my dogs on a truck full time even if it means missing the potential. I enjoy running and training myself, once their foundation is solid. And even if I do hit it in AA with some, doesn't mean I won't run HT with others, they all have their place. As long as they get to train and run, we're happy. Not being able to run because we can't get in, different story.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Susan Young said:


> I’ll bite. A good start would be if AKC judges were required to have TRAINED the dogs they run for the passes which qualify them to judge. As it stands now, an AKC judge can qualify by running any dog, no matter who owns it or who has trained it, as long as the dog passes. The new seven year requirement the AKC has added to maintain one’s judging eligibility also lacks the training requirement. If a judge runs a dog he owns but has not trained, or even borrows an FC/AFC and runs that dog to a pass, it shows nothing about his experience setting up a meaningful test, only that he has a friend willing to trust him with a valuable dog, and that he has the means to write a check for the entry fee. Someone who has spent years throwing birds for dogs, and seeing what works and what doesn’t, will hopefully bring that knowledge to test set up day.
> 
> HRC requires judges to have owned, trained, and passed dogs at the given level before they are approved to apprentice. NAHRA requires prospective judges to submit an application which asks, among other things, about their history of training a hunting retriever. Only AKC approves judges without ever asking if the prospective judge has ever so much as thrown a bird, as long as the prospective judge has $75 in his pocket for an entry fee.


I agree with your sentiments. The seven year rule is also part of this perfect storm. The judging pool was drastically reduced at the same time demand was exploding. Just one other factor involved. You can't run a test without judges!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> From where is this growth in tests going to come?
> 
> You Ams that are putting on the tests just need to work harder and put on more tests. That's just not working. . . . Nor is it going to happen. IMHO, its driving more Amateurs away!
> 
> ...


I answered your questions in my statement you quoted: "..._So grounds really aren't a major issue, it is an unwillingness of the majority of owner/handlers to get involved in forming new clubs or refusing to help work the events they enter...."_


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> I answered your questions in my statement you quoted: "..._So grounds really aren't a major issue, it is an unwillingness of the majority of *owner/handlers* to get involved in forming new clubs or refusing to help work the events they enter...."_


David, We profoundly disagree! There are many clubs that do not have additional grounds available. 

It's not the Owner/handlers that's the problem - Its the *non-handling* owners (the pro's clients) that are the problem! They're too lazy to even train and run their own dogs. Why would they be expected to help with a test. They are the TAKERS. 

Instead of increasing their opportunities to take, how about limiting their ability to Take. But of course we can't do that, because whatever new rule is done it will require EE to write new code. 

So the best solution is for all you grunts to just buck up and work harder!!!!!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> David, We profoundly disagree! There are many clubs that do not have additional grounds available.
> 
> It's not the Owner/handlers that's the problem - Its the *non-handling* owners (the pro's clients) that are the problem! They're too lazy to even train and run their own dogs. Why would they be expected to help with a test. They are the TAKERS.
> 
> ...


Doug get over your obsession with EE. EE will have to write new code regardless of the eventual decisions by the powers that be. And is it possible for you to have a discussion without the sarcasm? 

I strongly agree with the idea that pro's clients should help. I know firsthand that many such clients do help. I also agree that there are many "takers" who don't help but they aren't restricted to pro's clients. The takers that don't help make up the majority of EVERY HT or FT. It's these takers who don't help who need to pull their weight if the issue of supply is to be solved. But the solution is not to restrict participation. Such restrictions will eventual kill the sport. 

You keep inferring that I have suggested that "you grunts just buck up & work harder" when I haven't said that even once. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that the 75% of entries who currently don't work need to'buck up' & begin to help by working events that they enter so that existing clubs have the workers available & are willing to put on additional master tests or that these 75% organize new new clubs & work to provide additional master opportunities. Possibly the AKC could also help by allowing club to add master only events, And while some of this problem can be attributed to laziness, I doubt that is the major issue. I also know that pro birdboys are generally among the workers at every event I am a part of or know of. So I disagree that the pros are the issue. I also know some clubs that are controlled by a very few people & they don't want others involved for one reason or another, yet they complain about too much work at the same time.

All of this to say, the basic issue is still greater demand than available supply & until that is solved this problem will exist until the demand is leveled by the backlog of master dogs achieving the MNH title many are pursuing.

And BTW when I used the "owner/handler" in this context it didn't mean owners who handle versus those that don't handle it was just a short way to include the whole group of owners & handlers in one group.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Grounds are an issue for some clubs, so is lack of ACTIVE club members...the limit does help some clubs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

FOM said:


> Grounds are an issue for some clubs, so is lack of ACTIVE club members...the limit does help some clubs.


Don't think anyone disagrees that the "limited" master stake does help mitigate limited resources. But concerning grounds, yes some are truly limited there too. But what about another club using those grounds on a different weekend if grounds in a particular area are limited? At the same time grounds aren't an issue in many areas but the workers are few & clubs even fewer. Just as an example, the ARC is using spectacular grounds where they can hold a triple master without an issue of grounds but the issues are that its the same small group doing all the work while the majority who enter don't work limiting the potential for more opportunities. In the same area I own property that can easily hold a double master & a double jr/sr event but there is not a group willing to take on the responsibilities, yet a large group of enthusiasts, both HT & FT, use the property to train. We need more folks willing to go beyond owning dogs & actually be willing to help put on events.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

I have once again read this latest lengthy lament on being shut out of a master test and all the following watercooler talk about the reasons.

I am amazed at the simplistic views of several on this board. The one that really stands out is " blame it on the weekend test " argument. What an F-ing crock of beans!! That argument MIGHT hold true in 1 or 2 cases, but to paint the weekend test as the problem is foolish to say the least. That means the judges can't be trusted to set and judge a test to the standard and that does a tremendous disservice to just about everyone who gives up 3 days of their week to allow handlers to run and hopefully pass their dog. At the same time allowing the pro handler to further his/her bottom line at the judges and workers expense.

Looking at weekend entries 12 years ago, you may have seen a handful of dogs entered with a MH attached. Now, more than 50%. Stands to reason more dogs will be passing tests. And the BS argument of set the test to reflect the MN is completely counter to what the HT program is all about. Of course more dogs should be going out at the MN, THAT IS supposed to be the show case for the top MH dogs, not the weekend test. The weekend test is where Joe lunchbox has a chance to title his/her self trained beast and is judged to a standard which does not include a bunch of gimmicks designed to pass or fail a dog.

EACH club has to be able to decide what is best for the CLUB and it's members, NOT the pro handler seeking to pad his bottom line. And, at the same time not cut them out of the chance to run either. Whatever solution is found, it ,, above all, it has to try to be fair to all concerned.

And for those seeking challenging tests,, I invite you to come to Minnesota next summer. You will earn your ribbon at every level.

Darn Fine Judges and Dogs Regards


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Don't think anyone disagrees that the "limited" master stake does help mitigate limited resources. But concerning grounds, yes some are truly limited there too. But what about another club using those grounds on a different weekend if grounds in a particular area are limited? At the same time grounds aren't an issue in many areas but the workers are few & clubs even fewer. Just as an example, the ARC is using spectacular grounds where they can hold a triple master without an issue of grounds but the issues are that its the same small group doing all the work while the majority who enter don't work limiting the potential for more opportunities. In the same area I own property that can easily hold a double master & a double jr/sr event but there is not a group willing to take on the responsibilities, yet a large group of enthusiasts, both HT & FT, use the property to train. We need more folks willing to go beyond owning dogs & actually be willing to help put on events.


In our case, our area, where might you suggest we add ? Bear in mind many of us also run FT's.

*April 26 & 27 - Webb, IA*
Northwest Iowa Retriever Club*
www.nwiretrieverclub.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master, 1 Senior, 1 Junior

*May 3 & 4 - Waseca, MN*
Southern Minnesota Hunting Retriever Association*
www.sm-hra.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master (limited), 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*May 10 & 11* - Prior Lake, MN
Lake Country Retriever Club*
www.lcretrieverclub.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*May 16, 17 & 18* - Hastings, MN
NAHRA - Four Points Retriever Club
www.fourpointsrc.org
Premium at: www.fourpointsrc.org
SR, INT, HTR, ST (all 4 offered all 3 days)

*May 17 & 18* - Clearwater, MN
Rice Creek Hunting Dog Club
www.rchdclub.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*May 30, 31 June 1* - Marie on St. Croix, MN
Northern Flight Hunting Retriever Association*
www.nfhra.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 O/H Qualifying, 1 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*June 13, 14 & 15 *- Sauk Rapids, MN
Central Minnesota Retriever Club*
www.centralminnesotaretrieverclub.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
2 Master, 2 Senior, 2 Junior

*June 21 & 22 *- Pequot Lakes, MN
Marsh and Meadows HRC
www.marshandmeadows.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Finished, 1 Seasoned, 1 Started (both days)

*June 20, 21 & 22* - Glencoe & Prior Lake, MN
Lake Country Retriever Club*
www.lcretrieverclub.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 O/H Qualifying, 1 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*June 27, 28 & 29* - Virginia, MN
Minnesota Iron Range Retriever Club*
www.mirrc.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
2 Master (limited), 2 Senior, 2 Junior

*July 12 & 13* - Glyndon, MN
North Dakota Retriever Club*
www.ndrc.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master (limited), 2 Senior, 2 Junior

*July 11, 12 & 13* - Gilmanton, WI
Blackhawk Retriever Club*
www.blackhawkrc.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 O/H Qualifying, 1 Master, 2 Senior, 2 Junior

*July 18, 19 & 20* - Woodville, WI
Chippewa Valley Retriever Club*
www.cvretrieverclub.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 O/H Qualifying, 1 Master (limited), 1 Senior, 1 Junior

*July 18, 19 & 20* - TBD
NAHRA – Four Points Retriever Club
www.fourpointsrc.org
Premium at: fourpointsrc.org
SR, INT, HTR, ST (all 4 offered both days)

*July 19 & 20* - Bemidji, MN
Mississippi Headwaters Retriever Club*
www.mhrc.netfirms.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master (limited), 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*July 26 & 27* - Blooming Prairie, MN
Southern Minnesota Hunting Retriever Association*
www.sm-hra.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
2 Senior, 2 Junior

*Aug 1, 2 & 3* - Duluth, MN
Duluth Retriever Club*
www.duluthretrieverclub.net
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master (limited), 2 Senior, 2 Junior

*Aug 1, 2 & 3* - Weaver, MN
Watopa Retriever Club*
www.watoparetrieverclub.com
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
Qualifying, 1 Master (limited), 1 Senior, 1 Junior

*August 8, 9 & 10* - Princeton, MN
Hennepin County Amateur RC
No website
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Qualifying, 2 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*August 23 & 24* - Marie on St. Croix, MN
Northern Flight Hunting Retrievers Association*
www.nfhra.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master, 1 Senior, 2 Junior

*September 6 & 7* - Marie on St. Croix, MN
Land of Lakes HRC
http://www.llhrc.org
Premium at: http://www.llhrc.org
1 Finished, 1 Seasoned, 1 Started (both days)

*September 6 & 7* - Gilmanton, WI
Blackhawk Retriever Club*
www.blackhawkrc.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
2 Senior, 2 Junior

*September 6 & 7* - Glyndon, MN
North Dakota Retriever Club*
www.ndrc.org
Premium at: www.entryexpress.net
1 Master (limited), 1 Senior, 1 Junior
​


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Don't think anyone disagrees that the "limited" master stake does help mitigate limited resources. But concerning grounds, yes some are truly limited there too. But what about another club using those grounds on a different weekend if grounds in a particular area are limited? At the same time grounds aren't an issue in many areas but the workers are few & clubs even fewer. Just as an example, the ARC is using spectacular grounds where they can hold a triple master without an issue of grounds but the issues are that its the same small group doing all the work while the majority who enter don't work limiting the potential for more opportunities. In the same area I own property that can easily hold a double master & a double jr/sr event but there is not a group willing to take on the responsibilities, yet a large group of enthusiasts, both HT & FT, use the property to train. We need more folks willing to go beyond owning dogs & actually be willing to help put on events.


Our geographical location is unique, no one else can use these particular grounds as the owner will only let our club use them, they are 45 minutes from COS, if we were to go any where else we would get zero club membership help - PPRC has to travel 2.5 for our FT and I beg for club help (same few people show up). We are in an area that is pretty crappy for access to grounds (water).

And I've turned into a jerk about people using my new place to train (my place is not big enough for an event, but being 10-15 minutes from town, it provides a good training location) - you don't want to show up and help the club events, you can not train at my place outside of official club training days. I'm sick of people wanting the same people to give and give and give...but dear lord, you ask them to give up a weekend and it's like you have asked for their first born child....you might consider that with the trainers at your place....


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> In our case, our area, where might you suggest we add ? Bear in mind many of us also run FT's.
> 
> *April 26 & 27 - Webb, IA*
> Northwest Iowa Retriever Club*
> ...




What exactly is your point? I believe the AKC is open to, even encouraging, conflicting events if that is your point by listing the events. But that gets to my point which is the majority of entrants aren't pulling their weight. It is that group that needs to provide the worker staff to support new clubs or additional events at existing clubs. How else would you suggest that a supply shortage be addressed?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

FOM said:


> Our geographical location is unique, no one else can use these particular grounds as the owner will only let our club use them, they are 45 minutes from COS, if we were to go any where else we would get zero club membership help - PPRC has to travel 2.5 for our FT and I beg for club help (same few people show up). We are in an area that is pretty crappy for access to grounds (water).
> 
> And I've turned into a jerk about people using my new place to train (my place is not big enough for an event, but being 10-15 minutes from town, it provides a good training location) - you don't want to show up and help the club events, you can not train at my place outside of official club training days. I'm sick of people wanting the same people to give and give and give...but dear lord, you ask them to give up a weekend and it's like you have asked for their first born child....*you might consider that with the trainers at your place*....


Good idea.......


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> What exactly is your point? I believe the AKC is open to, even encouraging, conflicting events if that is your point by listing the events. But that gets to my point which is the majority of entrants aren't pulling their weight. It is that group that needs to provide the worker staff to support new clubs or additional events at existing clubs. How else would you suggest that a supply shortage be addressed?


The point is almost every weekend on this schedule has a HT running. Add to that the FT's being run on open weekends and by doing very simple math it is a bit tough to find more people and new clubs to run an event. One omission on the list is new event that actually is only replacing an existing event due the cancellation of one clubs August test. Add more to this by factoring in all of the Pointer clubs, specialty clubs and others using the grounds available to us and the question remains: where and when do you run additional events?

I cannot speak to other parts of the country, but the last thing we need are more events up here. That is not the problem we are dealing with. Conflicting events are not the answer to the limited entry problem. All resources to hold events are finite and adding more clubs and events just adds to an already existing problem of good help, judges and grounds in our area. That will not solve the problem, only create new ones.


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

Wow, 18 tests per year in one state ! There is 1 Fall and 1 spring AKC HT in Ky. , and its 2 1/2 hrs. away. 1 a little closer in Tenn. All other tests are a minimum of 3.5 hrs. and more like 6. It makes it really hard when they're selling out so quick. I could care less about qualifying for the MN. I just want to title MY dog and at least be able to enter my own clubs test that I have to spend a hundred dollars on gas and eat out all wknd. Not to mention all the bitching and moaning I get to hear about how long the test is taking and why are they doing this or that ? We need more workers and more tests ! BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!We need the manpower to put on several Master only tests spread out across the country in zones , to give the most people access. Im sure the grounds wouldn't be what stops that from happening.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> The point is almost every weekend on this schedule has a HT running. Add to that the FT's being run on open weekends and by doing very simple math it is a bit tough to find more people and new clubs to run an event. One omission on the list is new event that actually is only replacing an existing event due the cancellation of one clubs August test. Add more to this by factoring in all of the Pointer clubs, specialty clubs and others using the grounds available to us and the question remains: where and when do you run additional events?
> 
> I cannot speak to other parts of the country, but the last thing we need are more events up here. That is not the problem we are dealing with. Conflicting events are not the answer to the limited entry problem. All resources to hold events are finite and adding more clubs and events just adds to an already existing problem of good help, judges and grounds in our area. That will not solve the problem, only create new ones.


Again, how else do you solve a problem of more demand than there is supply other than provide more opportunity?


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

I have an idea. Remove the third series. Two series - land and water. This would allow more dogs per flight to be run. The standard could be tightened up and it would do away with some of the gimme third series that are put together on Sunday afternoon. Judges could be more free to really test with just the two series. Keep the double blind in one series. You can see all you need in two series. I realize AKC probably won't go for it, but no harm in throwing it out there.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

So are you saying two series and bumping the max entry to 80 dogs? I kinda like it.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Sounds like a good idea....make it must be two triples and you must pick up one without handling or hunting all over creation.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Carol Cassity said:


> I have an idea. Remove the third series. Two series - land and water. This would allow more dogs per flight to be run. The standard could be tightened up and it would do away with some of the gimme third series that are put together on Sunday afternoon. Judges could be more free to really test with just the two series. Keep the double blind in one series. You can see all you need in two series. I realize AKC probably won't go for it, but no harm in throwing it out there.


Id have to defer to more experienced HT folks, judges etc, but that seems like an idea worth some consideration. Those that think weekend tests aren't hard enough will probably say no but if FT folks (and we can) can test marking well enough in two series why can't HTs?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Tom Lehr said:


> Sounds like a good idea....make it must be two triples and you must pick up one without handling or hunting all over creation.


You could also say it is two triples (one land, one water) and one must have a blind with it? And you could keep the 3rd series but it's just a double blind? That would greatly speed things up?


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I guess I don't understand why amateurs aren't looking at other games..... HRC, yes finished can fill in them as well as I have found out, but NAHRA is still a GREAT game for an all-around hunting dog. Our numbers in the Midwest have been very low this past summer. We sure would welcome some new guys running it. You would not be disappointed in the dog work or the people.


----------



## SWIPER (Sep 24, 2006)

Adding more test ain't going to help because it's hard enough to get judges that are not judged out as it is already


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Tom Lehr said:


> Sounds like a good idea....make it must be two triples and you must pick up one without handling or hunting all over creation.


Agreed. Gorilla hunting and SOB is not marking. 

I seem to recall that the third series, long ago, was an upland and that was changed to land /water for time sake. The change to two series would save time, allow judges to set up master level tests without any watering down due to time constraints and should not adversely affect the ability to determine who is worthy of a qualified score and who is not.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> What exactly is your point? I believe the AKC is open to, even encouraging, conflicting events if that is your point by listing the events. But that gets to my point which is the majority of entrants aren't pulling their weight. It is that group that needs to provide the worker staff to support new clubs or additional events at existing clubs. How else would you suggest that a supply shortage be addressed?


You see it as a shortage, but it is really the "illusion" of a shortage created by qualification requirements for MN AND limited entry. Take either of those away and there is no "shortage". Clubs claim they need limited entry because of resources (grounds, judges, workers...) and there is little you can do about that. Add to it that clubs are all volunteer and you can't force them to do more than they want. On the other hand qualifications can easily be changed without compromising the quality of dogs entered. If you can't meet the demand with supply you must decrease the demand.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> I guess I don't understand why amateurs aren't looking at other games..... HRC, yes finished can fill in them as well as I have found out, but NAHRA is still a GREAT game for an all-around hunting dog. Our numbers in the Midwest have been very low this past summer. We sure would welcome some new guys running it. You would not be disappointed in the dog work or the people.


Registry, registry, registry. 
Simple really and you can argue it all day, but the titles that mean the most to the most are those that show up on the pedigree the most people care about.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

paul young said:


> What you said was: "If you can handle 2 master tests of 90 dogs each, you can handle a single master of 180 dogs." No problem with my math.....-Paul


A single master w/ 180 dogs requires 2 flights for a 3 day test or 3 flights for a 2 day test. It's the rule.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

limiting entries does not encourage the active memberships of more ametuers.....


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

badbullgator said:


> Registry, registry, registry.
> Simple really and you can argue it all day, but the titles that mean the most to the most are those that show up on the pedigree the most people care about.



Yes I get that, I have argued the same point, BUT if it is just people looking to run their dogs what difference does it make? I understand running for titles trust me I do. But a vast majority of dogs running hunt tests are not doing it for breeding purposes. I am not saying they are not going to be bred, but you don't title a male dog MH hoping to get your "investment" back in stud fees. But once a dog has the MH, if you are not going to run the MN why not run another gam eif you are just running for fun and to keep the dog sharp. Last NAHRA test I ran in senior all but three dogs were MH, two of the three were one pass away. the third the owner has no desire to run AKC..... Again depends on motives, but if AKC tests fil up and you want to run your dog, go run your dog someplace else.

Besides with sources like HUNTING DOG Pedigree etc, you can have a pedigree show all titles...... people frequently HRCH, MH a dog. both titles aren't going to show up on the AKC papers


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Carol Cassity said:


> I have an idea. Remove the third series. Two series - land and water. This would allow more dogs per flight to be run. The standard could be tightened up and it would do away with some of the gimme third series that are put together on Sunday afternoon. Judges could be more free to really test with just the two series. Keep the double blind in one series. You can see all you need in two series. I realize AKC probably won't go for it, but no harm in throwing it out there.


That would have the effect of raising the standard, which has been done enough already with advancements in training and breeding..... ask people that have been around, a Master test is what a qual used to be. raising the standard would make the sport MORE pro driven.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

limiman12 said:


> I am not saying they are not going to be bred, but you don't title a male dog MH hoping to get your "investment" back in stud fees.


BUT Fritz, this does INDEED happen. Where do you think a good percentage of the middle of the road meat dogs come from? Part time trainers MH dog with all his clearances bred to a hunting MH bitch or a hunting bitch. I'm not saying this is wrong. Just saying that in truth does happen. They get their MH then stay at home to pay the bills. No interest in going elsewhere. 

There are so many things to take into account in this whole picture. Time, money, grounds....the best idea I've seen recently is Carols on moving to two series. That will shorten time but demand is still there. Which is great. As to qualifiers for the MN? I don't think they'll go there. Even with all out bitching AKC is happy with making money.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> You see it as a shortage, but it is really the "illusion" of a shortage created by qualification requirements for MN AND limited entry. Take either of those away and there is no "shortage". Clubs claim they need limited entry because of resources (grounds, judges, workers...) and there is little you can do about that. Add to it that clubs are all volunteer and you can't force them to do more than they want. On the other hand qualifications can easily be changed without compromising the quality of dogs entered. If you can't meet the demand with supply you must decrease the demand.


Well sure, if you change the rules, any number of things can change to reduce demand. But "illusion", no. The demand is real under the current rules. Before the rule change creating the limited master, there was no complaining about not getting into a master test because everybody got in who wanted to, end of discussion. But this discussion is about the effects that the limited master rule change caused. The rule change didn't create an illusion of a shortage of opportunity. It created a real shortage by "limiting" the slots desired. Even without a rule change, the demand would be reduced over night if clubs started charging $200 for a weekend limited master test. And demand to enter the MN also has its monetary limits, although I don't think the recent increase announced is it.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Registry, registry, registry.
> Simple really and you can argue it all day, but the titles that mean the most to the most are those that show up on the pedigree the most people care about.


Unless you are trying to get the elusive MH75 why not try another venue after MH?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Unless you are trying to get the elusive MH75 why not try another venue after MH?


Now Tom I did not suggest people shouldn't run other venues. I only answered the mans question. There is little doubt that one of the major reasons AKC test are the king in terms of entry and that is titles show on THE pedigree most people care about.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> Yes I get that, I have argued the same point, BUT if it is just people looking to run their dogs what difference does it make? I understand running for titles trust me I do. But a vast majority of dogs running hunt tests are not doing it for breeding purposes. I am not saying they are not going to be bred, but you don't title a male dog MH hoping to get your "investment" back in stud fees. But once a dog has the MH, if you are not going to run the MN why not run another gam eif you are just running for fun and to keep the dog sharp. Last NAHRA test I ran in senior all but three dogs were MH, two of the three were one pass away. the third the owner has no desire to run AKC..... Again depends on motives, but if AKC tests fil up and you want to run your dog, go run your dog someplace else.
> 
> Besides with sources like HUNTING DOG Pedigree etc, you can have a pedigree show all titles...... people frequently HRCH, MH a dog. both titles aren't going to show up on the AKC papers


I am not sure where folks get the idea people aren't breeding HT dogs and doing very well at it. Many dogs in the weekend HT are out of other MH dogs. They are far from middle of the road meat dogs as Sue seems to think. 
To go further into why, NAHRA has a VERY limited number of clubs and I would bet the majority here have never seen one. Good venue? I don't know there is not one within a 1000 miles of me as far as I know. HRC, god love em, that's where I started. IMHO HRC has some internal and growth issues to deal with and alienate a lot of people. I am not one of those, but I see and hear it all the time. I will say I use to have far more fun running HRC than any other venue, but politics and policies have changed the feel of it. I will run the local clubs test, but if I am going to play dress up I will go hunting instead. Not really a knock at HRC, it is what it is and you either like their rules or you don't. Many people don't. Have you seen a lot of the folks who run AKC? Many of them have no clue what camo is.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Corey,

No offense was meant when I said middle of the road meat dogs. I was trying to differentiate between the high end FT breedings vs BYB breedings, the latter of which those MH breedings are not. It was not intent as derogatory towards the dog. Fritz commented that those dogs aren't titled to gain investment back by breeding, when that does, in fact, happen.

Sue


----------



## Paradox (Nov 9, 2006)

The original intent of hunt tests was to give the amateur an opportunity to test their training/dog. Therefore, my suggestion is to make the Master National "owner handler". Pros can enter the weekend tests but not handle dogs in the Master National (unless they are the owner). This would decrease the weekend entries for those Pro trained dogs whose owners have no intention of spending the time to run the Master National.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

So a pro would become co owner of all the dogs on their truck. Am owner handler?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

When I think of the Master National, great dogs & great people come to mind. These individuals are the judges, chairs, hunt secretaries, marshals and shooters at our weekend tests. Many of them are key in the planning and logistics of the weekend hunt tests. When any discussion of limits occur, many people respond with "if I can't run then I won't work". As we discuss options, let us also look at the unforeseen ramifications. Many suggest distancing the Master National from the weekend tests with qualifiers, lifetime qualification, ect. If these Master National affiliated handlers no longer need to run weekend tests will they continue to work and plan the weekend events? No one seems willing to answer this question. Maybe I am simply on a lot of ignore lists.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Why are we not pushing to increase capacity. Not all clubs can add more test , but some can. There are suggested to increase capacity that AKC has not acted upon. Lets start there and see what happens. Maybe we should start calling AKC to see if we can get some action. I do 99% of the training on my dogs and love the Master National. I like the idea at my age I can go up against the young guns. Most Pros do more than thier fair share ,only a few horse butts.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

skyy said:


> I don't believe any of this is a AKC problem nor a Master National problem, " ITS A CLUB PROBLEM" brought on by the clubs themselves.


Yes, those evil clubs who refuse to go out and purchase more land, build more ponds, etc. just to screw you over. Bwahahahahahaha.

Clubs do have a problem in terms limited resources. For some it is grounds, some it is workers and for some it is both.

Tightening judging standards may help as certainly fewer dogs would pass but it may not--under the current MN qualification system, those dogs would just keep running more HTs after where before they would stop when qualified. Personally, I do not see such an erosion of the standard. If anything, a MH pass is much tougher to come by than it was 20 years ago, but it may be different in other areas.

Tougher requirements on judges will only reduce the supply of qualified judges and make it tougher for clubs to put on HTs. Maybe good, maybe bad but it isn't going to increase capacity.

The limits are necessary for clubs that do not have the resources to run an unlimited number of MH dogs. Without them, some clubs would drop HTs all together.

A big part of the problem, in my eyes, is the arbitrary cutoff required by the AKC. Why do you have to split at 60 dogs if you could run 90 just as well with the grounds, workers and help you have? It is silly and if the AKC allowed clubs to determine when or if a split was necessary you would instantly get more capacity. Let the clubs decide whether or not to split and at what level. If they can't handle it, folks will learn to avoid that one, but arbitrary splits are silly. 

Not requiring JH and SH tests would also increase capacity for MH tests. Let the clubs decide what they want to do. If they want double JH and SH, have them. If they prefer to skip those stakes to cater to more MH entries, let them do so.

I think if we let clubs decide what they can do best, instead of having things dictated by the AKC with no good reason, you would see some creative solutions and it would certainly help alleviate some of the capacity issues.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

fishduck said:


> If these Master National affiliated handlers no longer need to run weekend tests will they continue to work and plan the weekend events? No one seems willing to answer this question. Maybe I am simply on a lot of ignore lists.


You are not on my ignore list, but it is too long to add any more folks.

You bring up a valid point. At the margin, certainly many of those griping would be the same ones who would not help if they did not need to qualify their dogs. Most clubs are made up of folks who work hard to help the club put on the best event that it can, but there are the second type in every club. However, they tend not to be the best workers anyway--the ones who pat themselves on the back (and post here about all their hard work at events) for bagging birds prior to a rebird--so it may not be as big a loss.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Many handlers continue to run dogs after they are qual for MN. Of course that's their right.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Carol Cassity said:


> Agreed. Gorilla hunting and SOB is not marking.
> 
> I seem to recall that the third series, long ago, was an upland and that was changed to land /water for time sake. The change to two series would save time, allow judges to set up master level tests without any watering down due to time constraints and should not adversely affect the ability to determine who is worthy of a qualified score and who is not.


No. Upland tests were never a standard requirement in AKC but we did seem to see more "creative" scenarios and upland situations back in the day.
I don't agree with eliminating the 3rd series. It's too often the "make or break" series for dogs that either need to step up their game or show those that just can't keep it together for 3 solid series. Compressing to 2 series will just lead to clubs doubling up on weekends and the Sunday test will become a give away as folks are anxious to get done and get home. 
No need to further dilute the MH.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

DoubleHaul said:


> Clubs do have a problem in terms limited resources.


I am sick and tired of hearing about this excuse. what did all of these clubs due before the Limited's entries where put in place ?? they got by didn't they. 

Who asked for these limited entries?? the clubs !!!
who runs the clubs ?? the weekend warriors !!!
whos complaining every other week ?? the weekend warriors !!!

makes you think eh !!! 

just a blokes point of view !!!

cheers.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

skyy said:


> I am sick and tired of hearing about this excuse. what did all of these clubs due before the Limited's entries where put in place ?? they got by didn't they.
> just a blokes point of view !!!
> 
> cheers.


That may be your point of view but the ignorance of it shows that you have absolutely no involvement in putting on a HT or FT and are just trolling.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> So a *pro* would become co owner of all the dogs on their truck. *Am* owner handler?


No. A pro can become an owner but not an Amateur. Of course there is no Amateur Definition in the HT rules.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

I just saw an unlimited test in Alaska that closed with 16 dogs...where is your dedication to the sport?....if you wanna run that bad, tests are out there for ya...:grin:


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> *That would have the effect of raising the standard*, which has been done enough already with advancements in training and breeding..... ask people that have been around, a Master test is what a qual used to be. raising the standard would make the sport MORE pro driven.


I totally disagree with this statement.

Setting up 2 challenging triples and judging to the CURRENT standard would not change anything. Judge the blinds accordingly and you have a solid test of a Master dogs skill set. 

I would bet more third series are below standard than not and as such allow marginal work to pass.

A standard never changes, only the way it is respected.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Real world scenerio. I train and campaign my own dogs. Due to work, family commitments and time constraints, my dogs run the Master National with a pro. I would dearly love to run them myself. Change the requirements to a regional qualifier or lifetime eligibility then I don't have to run 6 tests a year. That frees 6 three day weekends to handle work and family commitments and I would be able to run my own dogs in the Master National. Great news!!! The downside is 4 of the 6 tests I work. If I continue to work them then my dogs still go on a pro truck. 

The point of this isn't a pity party, simply that there are ramifications and unintended consequences to many of these reccomendations.

What can be done as an individual? Most clubs could use help. If you are lucky enough to get in volunteer to help. There is no Constitutional covenant in the AKC bylaws giving the right to sit in a lawn chair and watch a Master test. Take a judging seminar. Most are barely meeting the minimum number needed to make the seminar happen. Don't get in a test, call and offer to marshal, shoot or whatever is needed if another flight opens. That may allow a club with manpower issues an opportunity to add Master slots. These are positive steps that can be taken today, under the current rules and will immediately make a difference.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

skyy said:


> I am sick and tired of hearing about this excuse. what did all of these clubs due before the Limited's entries where put in place ?? they got by didn't they.
> 
> Who asked for these limited entries?? the clubs !!!
> who runs the clubs ?? the weekend warriors !!!
> ...


To give you a little history about the affect it has had on our club.

From Fall 2005 through Fall 2009, our club had 8 tests, with an average of 40 dogs. We did have one additional test offered that we had to split due to the Master National being in our back door (less than 2 hours away), with 83 entries.

After the Fall 2009 test, qualifications to the Master National were changed from 5 out of 7, to 6 (out of however many you want to run, and I have seen some dogs run 18 just to get the 6). From the Spring 2010 test through Fall 2012 test (6 tests with an average of 83 dogs (or double what we used to get), we were forced to split 4 times, with Master Nationals being held in Maryland and Alabama during that time period. 

Starting with Spring 2013, AKC allowed limited entries. In the 4 tests we have had since then, we have used the limit 3 times, and maxed out each time, with the last test filling up in less than 15 minutes with 90 dogs (and we had to reduce the offering of a senior stake also due to the limit of ponds on the grounds). Some of the other tests in our area that are not limiting are already at 185 dogs and there is still 2 months left to enter, and that does not account for the other stakes being offered.

Just providing some facts for you, since you do not seem to think this is an issue. To go from having 40 dogs in a Master, to now having to deal with at least 185, with still plenty of time to go for others to enter, how can limited resources of grounds or workers not be an issue?


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Zman1001 said:


> After the Fall 2009 test, qualifications to the Master National were changed from 5 out of 7, to 6 (out of however many you want to run



BINGO !!!!!!!! Just go back to 5 out of 7 and all your problems are solved.

yes its that easy.

cheers !!!!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

skyy said:


> BINGO !!!!!!!! Just go back to 5 out of 7 and all your problems are solved.
> 
> yes its that easy.
> 
> cheers !!!!


The rule was 5 out of 7 or 8 passes in however many attempts. Those that want to go will simply need 8 passes.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

ME and LRC Boston have both been open for a while and are not filled. The sky has not yet fallen.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> ME and LRC Boston have both been open for a while and are not filled. The sky has not yet fallen.



I doubt the sky will ever fall.

However, both tests are during waterfowl season. The Maine test is the most northern test in region 1. LRCGB opened last night at 7 PM and is only 3 weekends before the MN starts in California. -Paul


----------



## redranger (Feb 2, 2006)

If we keep making it this difficult to enter a Master Hunter Test, AKC is going to lose a lot of folks to HRC.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

HRC has always limited Finished to 30 dogs. You better sign up early for the popular tests because Finished always fills. Because it has always been that way, no one complains. Sure is a lot of fun!!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

redranger said:


> If we keep making it this difficult to enter a Master Hunter Test, AKC is going to lose a lot of folks to HRC.


I really don't think AKC cares.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> No. A pro can become an owner but not an Amateur. Of course there is no Amateur Definition in the HT rules.


That's my point with a owner/handler stake. A pro can become a part owner or be full owner and qualify to run it. Now if it were an amateur owner handler a pro could not run it whatever percentage he owned.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

It seems that a logical solution would be to require that all owners be members of a hunt test club with the name of the club(s) listed on the entry. Then leave it to the local clubs to police those who are active (working) members and those who are entering their dogs without the contribution. This would allow the clubs to "grandfather" some members who have done more than their share in the past. Falsifying an entry would be gross misconduct and subject to committee action.

T. Mac


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

paul young said:


> I doubt the sky will ever fall.
> 
> However, both tests are during waterfowl season. The Maine test is the most northern test in region 1. LRCGB opened last night at 7 PM and is only 3 weekends before the MN starts in California. -Paul


Go ahead Paul, you can say it....Master National, Master National, Master National, Master National:} Just some good hearted humor after a long training day......


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Paradox said:


> The original intent of hunt tests was to give the amateur an opportunity to test their training/dog. Therefore, my suggestion is to make the Master National "owner handler". Pros can enter the weekend tests but not handle dogs in the Master National (unless they are the owner). This would decrease the weekend entries for those Pro trained dogs whose owners have no intention of spending the time to run the Master National.


Could you please provide some sort of written reference which supports your definition of the original intent of hunt tests? 
Thanks


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Susan Young said:


> I’ll bite. A good start would be if AKC judges were required to have TRAINED the dogs they run for the passes which qualify them to judge. As it stands now, an AKC judge can qualify by running any dog, no matter who owns it or who has trained it, as long as the dog passes. The new seven year requirement the AKC has added to maintain one’s judging eligibility also lacks the training requirement. If a judge runs a dog he owns but has not trained, or even borrows an FC/AFC and runs that dog to a pass, it shows nothing about his experience setting up a meaningful test, only that he has a friend willing to trust him with a valuable dog, and that he has the means to write a check for the entry fee. Someone who has spent years throwing birds for dogs, and seeing what works and what doesn’t, will hopefully bring that knowledge to test set up day.
> 
> HRC requires judges to have owned, trained, and passed dogs at the given level before they are approved to apprentice. NAHRA requires prospective judges to submit an application which asks, among other things, about their history of training a hunting retriever. Only AKC approves judges without ever asking if the prospective judge has ever so much as thrown a bird, as long as the prospective judge has $75 in his pocket for an entry fee.


Regs. and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers....Chapter 1 Section 6. Judges Eligibility, seems logical to me. This is a subject a past president of the Master National has addressed regarding judges for the Master National. ELIGIBILITY vs. QUALIFICATIONS


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> I totally disagree with this statement.
> 
> Setting up 2 challenging triples and judging to the CURRENT standard would not change anything. Judge the blinds accordingly and you have a solid test of a Master dogs skill set.
> 
> ...


Seems a bit contradictory to your post #144, unless you are referring to test outside of Minnesota


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Seems a bit contradictory to your post #144, unless you are referring to test outside of Minnesota


Correction. Post# 104

Sorry


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Mike Berube said:


> Seems a bit contradictory to your post #144, unless you are referring to test outside of Minnesota


Not contradictory at all. 2 answers. Two completely different questions. Not that tough to follow.


----------



## Paradox (Nov 9, 2006)

Mike Berube said:


> Could you please provide some sort of written reference which supports your definition of the original intent of hunt tests?
> Thanks


Following is a link from the AKC website on the history of Hunting Tests:

http://www.akc.org/events/hunting_tests/retrievers/history.cfm

The first sentence states "hunters with good retrievers but without the resources, or time, to be able to be competitive at field trials were anxious to have an avenue to test their dogs for hunting abilities."

"their dogs" infers the hunters are the owners. "without resources or time" infers that they are not professionals and do not use professionals to train or run their dogs.

IMHO, if you are hiring a pro to train and run your dog (which I do), why are you running hunt tests rather than field trials (which I do)? Just wondering.....


----------



## fastpup (Jan 21, 2013)

Maybe someone could come up with an ADDITIONAL category for regular working people who train their own dogs? Leave the "master" category to the pros who have completely taken it over? "Seasoned?" "Super?" "Finished?" I recently managed to get into one and then my dog came into season! Jeeze.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Paradox said:


> Following is a link from the AKC website on the history of Hunting Tests:
> 
> http://www.akc.org/events/hunting_tests/retrievers/history.cfm
> 
> ...


Wow...that really cleared it up. That makes about as much sense as saying because you live in CO we should infer that you smoke pot? Just saying....


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Mike Berube said:


> Wow...that really cleared it up. That makes about as much sense as saying because you live in CO we should infer that you smoke pot? Just saying....



Really? Seems to make allot of sence for me, there are a very select few and I mean a VERY SELECT FEW HT pro's that I would EVER consider leaving my dog with for more than a day... I have come to the conclusion that HT owners and trainers, have a much lower standard , in Manners and Training.....

Masters were never intended for the pro they were intended for the guy with his well trained hunting dog, the MN has made it a monster and the average guy and his dog has no place anymore.. Untill the clubs X out the MN nothing will change...

I understand your post about the weekend test undermining the standard, but bottom line the desire and quest for a MN tiltle has eroded the over all intent of the Master HT title..
If your dog is a MH please step up to the plate and run some Q's, from what i have seen running and judging most MH can not compete at that level out of the gate, the longer blinds with factors kill them, most don't get past the land blind, but would certainly be able with some training.......


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> Really? Seems to make allot of sence for me, there are a very select few and I mean a VERY SELECT FEW HT pro's that I would EVER consider leaving my dog with for more than a day... I have come to the conclusion that HT owners and trainers, have a much lower standard , in Manners and Training.....
> 
> Masters were never intended for the pro they were intended for the guy with his well trained hunting dog, the MN has made it a monster and the average guy and his dog has no place anymore.. Untill the clubs X out the MN nothing will change...
> 
> ...


So Todd....does this mean you had an revelation back on June 14 at the Central Minn. R/C test?
Maybe you should start your own HT Pro/Angie's List category with your vast experience working with retrievers....I think not.
The topic of discussion is master Tests, not field trials...stay on point.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I read this debate with a bit of bemusement and just a little sadness for what has happened to HT's. I have been around long enough to remember (and got my start in HT in the mid 80's)... When the HT were just about having a good time, getting our dogs trained to a proficient level to be very good hunting dogs... And if we were lucky, maybe even great hunting dogs. 

Our clubs would hold tailgates or barbecues regularly... Fun tests to draw in new members were an annual event. Some of us even learned a little about breeding and got better dogs and took a crack at FTs... (That's how I ended up in the game).

But, when I read a thread like this... And all the headaches associated with just ENTERING a stake. WTH? There are too many other things to do with your life than get an ulcer over a game. Find another one. There is NAHRA, HRC or heavens forbid... Field Trials... The dogs couldn't care less... As long as someone throws something, they will be happy. The color of the ribbon won't bother them at all. 

On the other hand, if you are having fun... Playing EE Roulette, by all means, carry on.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Todd Caswell said:


> Masters were never intended for the pro they were intended for the guy with his well trained hunting dog, the MN has made it a monster and the average guy and his dog has no place anymore


If that is the case, why weren't pros outlawed when they wrote the rules?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

None of us were there when the original concept or rules were written. However, I would guess the use of pros in the HT venue wasn't even thought of. I would imagine they thought the pros would stay on the FT side aNd never migrate to HT. 
JMO.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Just gotta say this: times change!
Horse for auto's , cellphones, internet, drones and some even trade in the spouse, dogs pass on yet these guidelines have not been modified to any extent since the beginning. Maybe we need some changes but it will never go back to the way it was! 

Get off the pro bashing please, realize that FT's are not for everyone for a variety of reasons please 
Consider ways to have the sport grow and how you can help 

Finally for all of us that like and study the rulebooks for either sport look at the back cover page and I speak of the 
"Code of Conduct". The first listed item - Sportsmanship. 
The question to ask - Am i being a good sportsman ! 
Just me and I know I am a bit wacky 
Dk


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

I suggest some of you who know little about the origins of HUNT TEST read the NAHRA online publications going back to 1984 (online). Get your history straight. I travelled in Minnesota/Wisconsin in 1984 w/Richard Wolters at Game Fair and several radio broadcasts (WCCO) and TV pumping up HT. I was and remain a FTer but saw the vision for it for others. As I said before many but not all FTers in ND/MN/WI were concerned about what it would mean. Wolters was the ultimate salesman . That is why w/over 8+ clubs in the MN/WI/ND area running HTs it remains as for FTs a honey spot. Having been in ME, CT, MA, VT ,DE ,MD ,NY running HTs that region suffers from too many non-hunters putting on HTs w/lack of adequate grounds - workers . The regions/terrain/club ownership of grounds or not / mileage to travel all impact involvement. IMHO


----------

