# Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

Just received a copy of the proposed amendment to the MNRC Constitution and Bylaws which is concerned with ways to address the large number of entries at the Master National. I would like to hear the pros and cons concerning the proposed change from others who run hunt tests so that I can be better informed when discussing this with my club members. Thank you.

Current Article IX, Section 3 (a2) reads: All contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs. Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four Master tests by member clubs and have an MH title.

Proposed Article IX, Section 3 (a2): After earning a Master Hunter title, all contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs. Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four Master tests by member clubs after earning their MH title.


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

As I understand this...in order to qualify, the dog would have to pass 6 more tests AFTER obtaining it's MH title?


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

That's what the Master National's position is. They cite that there are huge logistic challenges to putting on a 700+ dog event. If the grounds are available, then there aren't enough hotels & restaurants and vice versa. Their letter also states that "the average age of the entered dogs has moved downward.....These youngsters typically go out in the 1st or 2nd series, as they are not yet mature or seasoned enough to handle big tests and the pressure of a 9 day event". I've never ran a Master National so I don't know if the argument holds true or not. I do believe that holding a 700+ dog event has its logistical challenges, but I'm just not sure this is the best way to address that problem.


----------



## MDowney (Mar 22, 2008)

Do the passes have to be between Aug 1, and july 31?


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

the way i read it says that in order for a dog that is just starting his master's tests (and didnt run senior) in order to qualify for the master national in that year he will need to pass 12 tests in one year to qualify for the national. 6 to get his master and 6 to qualify. seems ridiculous. the other alternative would be for him to pass 6 masters then wait till after the master national and proceed to get 6 more master passes for 3 years in a row. in essence you will need 24 masters passes instead of 18. it will turn into a pro only endeavor. i agree there is alot of entries for the master national but this just seems like a money grab or an elitist mentality. what would once take (theoretically) 3 years to accomplish will now take 4 unless you hulk up and pass 12 your first year. more money will be made by the 6 extra master passes added (assuming you don't have a backlash and less people go ofter the MNH title) and the AKC will still say they lose money.

when is the vote and when will it go into affect if passed?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I have a better idea.


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

The votes are to be submitted by June 15th and the results will be posted to the Master National website by July 1st. If passed, the change would take effect starting August 1st, 2013, the start of the qualifying year for the 2014 event.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Whatever is done to reduce numbers will (correctly or incorrectly) get tagged as making the MN a pro endeavor.

I see the current proposal as a short term fix to a long term problem. But, maybe that's what is needed right now.

They could just do a straight 5 of 7 ( and no 8) and be done with it. 



just my .02


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> They could just do a straight 5 of 7 ( and no 8) and be done with it.


Can you say, "Judge shopping?"


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I don't think the founding fathers ever thought the numbers for the Master National would be this large the first in 1991 until this date. I have the RFTN 1991 and the front page shows the dogs who qualified at the first Master National. Limit the weekend numbers will help some, otherwise with a pass fail the numbers will grow. Obedience trials started to do placements on scores, 170 passing, 200 perfect score, offering different placements for the high scores. Don't think that would work can already hear the hue and cry breathing on my necks as I type. Pro game or not I still believe the average working guys with a decent dog can qualify for the Master National if they want it bad enough and their priorities are in order.


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

I think they tried the 6 out of 8 passes a couple of years ago and not too sure that worked. If a dog earns 6 master passes whether it has a title or not in the qualifying year haven't they met the standard enough? If one is going to say that a new master hunter hasn't proven him/herself as much as a dog that got its title last year, then raise the bar for all dogs. I do understand why the master national is having a conundrum, however, I'm not sure they should discriminate based on when the dog was titled. I believe that all things being equal, everyone and every dog should have an equal opportunity to qualify, if the handler so chooses to pursue getting qualified. AKC states that 6 passes equate to MH title, why not have 8 or some other number of passes for ALL dogs to qualify within the qualifying year?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Can you say, "Judge shopping?"


People do it now. Some for good reason.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I must be missing something. I don't see this as a solution to limiting the entries for the Master National. Would raising the passing score requirement make it tougher for dogs to pass and get their MH?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

It was 5 of 7 or a total of 8.

Someone on here did the stats of the dogs who passed the MN. As I recall 70% of the dogs that got 5 of 7 to qualify passed and maybe only 30% of the dogs that got the 8 to qualify.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

lbbuckler said:


> raise the bar for all dogs.


Agree, for all dogs looking to go to the Master National. 
To qualify for a MH tiltle a dog needs 6 passes with an average score of 7 this bar should remain. If the MNRC wants to reduce numbers and make this a real showcase of the best they should propose raising their bar by requiring 3 scores of 9 or above to qualify for the MN. 
Raise the quality of performances not quantity.

Tim


----------



## paigekjones (May 27, 2011)

Some that are younger go out but what about those who have an older dog who just happen to qualify when they are older? This would require them to get 12 passes too. How many dogs would be "eliminated" by this new rule ? Would it help reduce the entries by the number they need? Perhaps it would make sense to either make a pass more difficult or consider having a an east and west master national and leave the rules the same?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> .....Obedience trials started to do placements on scores, 170 passing, 200 perfect score, offering different placements for the high scores......


 This is what I would suggest.

Qualify by placement points, earned in MN club events.
They don't need to change the standard for passing or failing a Master test. And they don't need to put an extra burden on the dogs that just titled that year.

If the dog has the talent and training to place high enough to earn the points to qualify, it's a dog that deserves a shot at the Master National. If it can barely squeak through 6 tests a year, it's not.

Who cares how old the dog is, or what year it titled? 
What matters, is that it demonstrates that it can consistently perform at a level well above the class average.


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

lbbuckler said:


> ...I would like to hear the pros and cons concerning the proposed change from others who run hunt tests so that I can be better informed when discussing this with my club members...


The pro? They're attempting to find a way to limit entry numbers and keep the event manageable. I agree that the success of the event is making it harder to manage, find grounds, logistics, etc. Finding a way to keep entries manageable isn't a bad thing I would really like to know how many of the 700+ dogs in last year's MN would not have qualified under this proposed rule. Exactly how much of an impact in numbers will this make?

The con? I think this will have the most impact on the amatuer. If you have a dog that's getting ready to title, and you want to run in the MN, you're going to have to run more tests (more time and more $$$) if you can't use the passes from your title run. While Pros, and some very involved Ams, run ten or twelve (or more) tests a year, how many does the average one or two dog Am run? And for those that don't travel far for the MN, waiting one more year may mean having to wait another four years for it to cycle back to your region. And while those in Alaska still would only need four passes, by not letting them use passes gained in a title run, may add a couple years, not just one.
I am also curious how this will be view by the Pros. I can't imagine that anything that negatively impacts the number of dogs they can qualify and bring will be view favorably (and we've already seen that they swing a big stick when it comes to influence when the amendment to require one pass for a MN qual be made by the owner was shot down before even coming up for an official vote).

I know that when I went to the MN in 2010, I used a couple passes from our title run to qualify. If suppose if I this requirement existed, I would have run more tests, but I wouldn't have liked it. When we ran, although we went out in the fourth series, he was certainly qualified to be there.

I know the MN Board is looking at any viable option to keep entries manageable, and I certainly don't think there's any "right answer" that's going to work for everyone. I'm curious to hear if there are more arguments in favor of this amendment other than, "we need to find something to do to limit entries...".


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

copterdoc said:


> Qualify by placement points, earned in MN club events...
> 
> ...If the dog has the talent and training to place high enough to earn the points to qualify, it's a dog that deserves a shot at the Master National..


While good in theory, I don't think this is practical. It's hard enough now to find judges, in a pass fail scenario. How difficult and contentious will it be when you open up the score sheets for all to view? What's the performance difference between an 8 and a 9? If you ask that question on this forum, you'll get twenty pages of heated rhetoric, and still not have an answer. 

Again, I don't know what the answer is either...


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Agree, for all dogs looking to go to the Master National.
> To qualify for a MH tiltle a dog needs 6 passes with an average score of 7 this bar should remain. If the MNRC wants to reduce numbers and make this a real showcase of the best they should propose raising their bar by requiring 3 scores of 9 or above to qualify for the MN.
> Raise the quality of performances not quantity.
> 
> Tim


I have heard more than one judge state they never give a 10. Had 1 judge who I trained with a few years ago tell me the highest you could get from him on the go bird was a 7. Did not matter how clean the mark was, 7 is all you get. Asking for 9's to qualify is asking for perfection. 
I once front footed 3 marks, and lined the double blinds. Saw the judge sheet inadvertently because I was the marshal and I had 7's and 8's. Go figure.
Sorry for the hijack. I do not have an answer for the high entries.
MP


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ron in Portland said:


> While good in theory, I don't think this is practical. It's hard enough now to find judges, in a pass fail scenario. How difficult and contentious will it be when you open up the score sheets for all to view? What's the performance difference between an 8 and a 9? If you ask that question on this forum, you'll get twenty pages of heated rhetoric, and still not have an answer.
> 
> Again, I don't know what the answer is either...


 I believe that you are over thinking this.

We all went to school, and while it was not a competition, we all received letter grades, and GPA's.
And while it was a pass/fail scenario, we all knew who the A students were, and who the C students were.

It wasn't that complicated, and there wasn't a need to explain the difference.


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

I have never been to the MN or the Grand. We have all heard about the 700 entries etc. By comparison how many entries does the Grand get each year? I know that the Grand has a Spring and Fall event. Would spliting the MN into two East/ West be feasible?


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

They are thinking of starting it the year that it is on the West coast. Where the entries are consistently the lowest! 

So the 20-50 or so 'local' dogs will just be getting their MH this will not be able to enter and play. 
People that could be potential volunteers for the event. Of course, I am thinking of people that run their own dogs, and are not handled by pros. 

It's the MNH that is keeping SOME people from all over the country returning every year.

Isn't that a big reason that is why the entries have been huge the last 2 years?

Debbie


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Codatango said:


> It's the MNH that is keeping SOME people from all over the country returning every year.
> 
> Isn't that a big reason that is why the entries have been huge the last 2 years?
> 
> Debbie


That, and the fact that they removed the 5 out of 7 requirement, and just made it 6 passes, no matter how many tests it takes you. If they would institute the old qualification requirement, the numbers would return back to a manageable number.


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

I know when they had the previous 5 of 7 rule, handlers picked judges, clubs got 'easier' judges and people scratched after they watched the test dog if they thought it too tough to even start. Clubs must have protested?! 

The latter created issues for clubs to deal with - but let's not get into that on this thread please!

I hadn't run Master as yet, so I didn't hear the scuttlebutt!

Debbie


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

I believe this is a poor solution . The 700 entry's is proof that we are encouraging folks to get out and train. By making it hard to play is going backwards. What we need is split MN events. If we keep promoting the game we will need to address the numbers eventually. Don't make it harder to play.


----------



## phillip1119 (Sep 6, 2011)

DMA said:


> I believe this is a poor solution . The 700 entry's is proof that we are encouraging folks to get out and train. By making it hard to play is going backwards. What we need is split MN events. If we keep promoting the game we will need to address the numbers eventually. Don't make it harder to play.


^^^^ This...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe they should have to add a field trial ribbon to the standard?


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

Scott Shafer said:


> the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02


Intresting Idea.


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

Will a pass from the previous MN still count as 2 passes towards the upcoming MN?


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

Crazy ... why did they ever change it from what it was to begin with??? ... what was it? 5 out of 7 in a year or 6 consecutive?? My head hurts reading this stuff...Why don’t they just go back to that?


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

Split the MN into 2 event a year and this will take care of a good part of the problem.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

A regional and then a final. Imagine having 4 regionals - seems there would definitely be good consistent turnout for those, then all qualifiers of each regional could move on to the National Master.

Seems it would make the MN a bit more prestigious, too.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

You all keep saying regional qualifying event gonna piss bubba off. Least you can do wait to do it when I can steal his beer 

/paul


----------



## rotcsig443 (Apr 8, 2013)

I think its a big load of crap to want to do this IMHO. The hunt test side of things was created to accommodate the average individual who did not have the time to train a FT level dog (in my understanding), and to give these same individuals a chance so show off the skill of their canine companions. I feel that the MNRC is just getting lazy. The interest in sporting dogs and hunt test retrievers is growing and they should be excited about it. Not want to restrict how many dogs that have the skills to run there bc you simply feel there are to many. If you have a MH dog, you should have an opportunity to run the Master National. Not have to hope, that as an individual who trains dogs in their free time they get from work and family, to be able to hopefully have time to run it in the future if you have a dog that SHOULD be there. To me this proposal is to pretty much strictly accommodate/affect the professional trainers who do it for a living, and not to individuals who have other jobs that dream of going to run a dog at this level. It completely almost cuts the normal guy out due to other obligations. Hope no one takes any offense of this, its just my honest opinion. And i know of several big time pro's that are disgusted at this proposal also.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I hate to suggest this,, but MN registered clubs, when they have a hunt test on any given weekend, why not require them to declare a winner?
Other dogs that meet the standard, would still pass the test, and recieve a ribbon, ,, but ONE dog that day, that stood out above all others would WIN..

Then require so many of those wins, before the dog goes to the master national.

Gooser


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I guess they decided they want the dogs that have participated the most, not unnecessary the best. 

It will be interesting how this all plays out.

On one hand they have AKC finally allowing clubs to limit the number of master entries.

On the other they have the Master National requiring more participation in master to qualify.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

wasn't it the master national that had all the skuttlebutt, was it 2 years ago, about money. or the lack of?????
or was it like the movie line "Show me the Money?"
why would an event that is strapped for cash want less dogs?
I know one thing, our everyday member club master hunt test numbers will rise 'cause you all will need to keep running.
Fine for me, I have Monday off. I'll toss ducks for your 3-day master hunt tests.


----------



## tracyw (Aug 28, 2008)

Please vote NO!!! 

This is complete BS! Please believe me...this is just another way for the AKC to make more money off of an already expensive event! It should not be about eliminating the "young" dog from the event there are instances were a very qualified dog would need 12 passes to qualify if this proposal goes through... 

Lets say my field trial dog is 4 years old and extremely qualified to run the MN but I was playing the FT game. Then I decide to get her title and qualify for the MN...I have to get 12 passes (6 for the MH title plus 6 for the MN qualification) on my 4 year old qualified dog! Who was more than ready to run the event. They are trying to make this a RICH man only game!! If the young dogs can do the work, let them play!!!

Cost breakdown to pass 6 master tests in one year (averages):

6 passes - entry fees: $480

Travel: $300

hotels: $780

food on the road: $300

--------------------------------

Total to qual a MN dog $1860 (this is JUST to qualify...not the event) now we need to double that the first year!

The one "freeby" year that we are getting our Master title is being taken from us!!


Pleas VOTE NOOOOOO!!!!


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Limit the number of dogs that a pro can bring and run to the MN. That'll immediately drop the entry numbers. Hopefully bringing the amateur back into the game more. If their pro qualifies their dog under the current rules, then the pro has to decide what dogs to take and force the owners to handle their own dog.


----------



## jpws (Mar 26, 2012)

Just a thought....Have the dogs at each MH test, clarify at the time of entry if they intend to "qualify" for the MNH event. Those in the running to qualify for the MNH, to be marked on the judges sheet, and those passing are ranked in some manner by combining judges scores. The top X amount (either a # or a % of entries) in that given test get a qualifying score from that test to count toward MNH. Perhaps make it an extra $5 on the entry fee to mark those who want to go on.

Different sport, but for comparison sake - this is how it works in amateur MX racing that seems to work well. There are a series of Area Qualifiers that anyone and everyone can race in. Those that have interest and ability to pursue a Natl Championship pay an extra $5 at the AQ, and those in the top X finishing positions can move on to the Regional Qualifier. As with hunt tests, there'd be multiple tests within a region. From the Regional Qual, they take the top X# (best of the best so far) and move on to the Natl Champ - with an equal number entrants from 7 different regions accross the country. Some folks do enter multiple regional$ to increase their chances, but it would keep the total more manageable and at the $ame time make it a bit more compeititve along the way ensuring the better dogs are at the MNH.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> I know one thing, our everyday member club master hunt test numbers will rise 'cause you all will need to keep running.


That may be true, but it only would apply to dogs that do not yet have their MH. It seem to me that it might reduce the surge of entries in clubs that are located near where the MN is being held in a particular year. The folks that say "hey, i can run the MN without traveling across the country this year, so I will get my 6 passes and give it a shot" will be reduced because a number of them will require 12 passes and decide that it isn't worth it.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Just press the EASY button.

MNRC=Owner/Handler

Done

Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
Bubba


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

TroyFeeken said:


> Limit the number of dogs that a pro can bring and run to the MN. That'll immediately drop the entry numbers. Hopefully bringing the amateur back into the game more.


That would limit entries and also greatly increase the expense of a MN pass for a great many folks. Lots of folks train and run their dogs themselves in weekly HTs but the time away from work and expense of traveling all that time are not worth it so they put the dog on a pro's truck for the MN. Since the pro is going anyway and has several clients to spread the cost it is much cheaper that way. I know if I ever had the desire to have one of my dogs run a MN, I would not even consider doing it myself but would have a pro run it for me.

Not to mention that if you limit the pros dogs, that limit would work over into the weekend HTs, many of which need the pros to make money.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ron in Portland said:


> While good in theory, I don't think this is practical. It's hard enough now to find judges, in a pass fail scenario. How difficult and contentious will it be when you open up the score sheets for all to view? *What's the performance difference between an 8 and a 9? If you ask that question on this forum, you'll get twenty pages of heated rhetoric, and still not have an answer. *
> 
> Again, I don't know what the answer is either...


If they can't tell the difference between an 8 and a 9, how do they know the difference between a 6 and a 7? 

It's fine that people want everyone to have a chance at a plate, but if it's truly supposed to be "the best of the best", ya gotta somehow ramp up the bar. No other answer.

JS


----------



## tracyw (Aug 28, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...


Love it! Master National Open & Master National Amateur! Great idea!

If that doesn't work, as mentioned above, limiting the number of dogs a pro can take (like the Grand) would eliminate the numbers.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> Done
> Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
> Bubba


gosh that would upset lots of applecarts.
what of the folk who can not get away from life to go?
or what of the folk that have a dog that runs better for the pro?
or.... will pro's all of a sudden own the 14 dogs on the truck for two weeks?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I believe that you are over thinking this.
> 
> We all went to school, and while it was not a competition, we all received letter grades, and GPA's.
> And while it was a pass/fail scenario, we all knew who the A students were, and who the C students were.
> ...


*Have you ever even judged??* This is not a good solution for a whole lot of reasons. 

Split the event, go regional. This new rule change will shove out the average joe hunt tester. I don't want to spend that kind of money--12 passes??? In this economy. Forget it.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

The person this proposal hurts the most is the owner/handler that decides to run the Master National when it is close. This guy now has to run an extra 6 tests. Not a big deal for those that write checks and don't handle dogs. For the average owner handler 12 weekends away from home is going to cause serious tension at the home front. Even with half of those passes coming from a double master, it is still 9 weekends.

In my area the owner/handlers are the test chairs, hunt committee, flyer shooters and the marshalls. These people need to be encouraged to become more active in the sport. Don't put another roadblock in the way of their participation.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...


and here I thought I was the only one who could tick off all the cool kids...lol..


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

doublehaul said:


> that may be true, but it only would apply to dogs that do not yet have their mh. It seem to me that it might reduce the surge of entries in clubs that are located near where the mn is being held in a particular year. The folks that say "hey, i can run the mn without traveling across the country this year, so i will get my 6 passes and give it a shot" will be reduced because a number of them will require 12 passes and decide that it isn't worth it.


that would be me!


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

fishduck said:


> The person this proposal hurts the most is the owner/handler that decides to run the Master National when it is close. This guy now has to run an extra 6 tests. Not a big deal for those that write checks and don't handle dogs. For the average owner handler 12 weekends away from home is going to cause serious tension at the home front. Even with half of those passes coming from a double master, it is still 9 weekends.
> 
> In my area the owner/handlers are the test chairs, hunt committee, flyer shooters and the marshalls. These people need to be encouraged to become more active in the sport. Don't put another roadblock in the way of their participation.


I agree with this, as I am this situation AGAIN for 2014 with a young dog (and only dog). 

Don't forget the 12 passes ASSUMES the dog qualifies at all of them. You gotta figure in a fail or 2. We are not only speaking of young dogs or 'new to master' game' (ie. from field trials), but any seasoned dog with mulitiple master passes can fail on any given day.

And there still is the issue of the greenness of the handler or handler error (or lack of experience) at any given test.
You know, that one whistle that was just a tad late and you lost your dog.

Debbie


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

Scott Shafer said:


> the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02


This makes too much sense - so the MN won't even consider it (ok, being nasty here!)

Agility does this at some of the various organizations and it works. But the AKC won't consider the MH, MH1, MH2 (or MHX) which works for obedience and agility, so why would the MN BOARD be different from any other stogy governing body in Field events?

Debbie


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...



Didn't the MN try to pass that a few years ago?


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> Didn't the MN try to pass that a few years ago?


They tried to pass an amendment that said in one of the qualifying passes for the MN, the owner had to be the handler. The issue was scrubbed before making it to a vote.


----------



## RockyDog (Nov 18, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...


Where's the "Like" button???


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

RockyDog said:


> Where's the "Like" button???


Careful, You'll have some MN official person telling you that no judge will pass you if you keep making comments like that on the internet. The little whiney master-mafia will conspire to sharpen their pencils against your dog.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I like the regional idea somewhat. If you had a regional qualifier, say a 3 or 4 day test, I might run that even though I would be unlikely ever to go to the MN even if qualified. The problem with the regional qualifier is that it adds more to the time and expense of that pewter plate with the qualifier and then the whole MN grind. Would probably limit the MN to the pros and retired.

Why not split the thing into several MNs? Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field. Plus, that would allow for more fact finding junkets for the MNRC powers that be, so they would be all over that


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> I like the regional idea somewhat. If you had a regional qualifier, say a 3 or 4 day test, I might run that even though I would be unlikely ever to go to the MN even if qualified. The problem with the regional qualifier is that it adds more to the time and expense of that pewter plate with the qualifier and then the whole MN grind. *Would probably limit the MN to the pros and retired.*
> 
> Why not split the thing into several MNs? Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field. Plus, that would allow for more fact finding junkets for the MNRC powers that be, so they would be all over that


This is already true of the current system. Anyone who isn't local to that year's MN has to be giving up tons of travel money and at least 10 - 12 days of work/time. If there were regionals first, then a National, the National would have far fewer entries than now and take far less time, I would think. Making it easier for people to go to the national. Especially if the National moved liked it does now.

But I really haven't had enough coffee yet.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

lbbuckler said:


> Proposed Article IX, Section 3 (a2): After earning a Master Hunter title, all contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs. Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four Master tests by member clubs after earning their MH title.


This new rule just hurts the younger pro dogs, and the Amateur handler. The Pros it might stop a single dog from going for one year, or make the dog run additional tests after a title is awarded. A very committed Amateur it might knock them out for one year. However the most negative would be felt by the weekend Amateur who doesn't run many tests only has one dog that they might take, once in a life-time. These are the people we want to go and run the MNH. I don't see this knocking the repeat every year *MNH title!!!* type of handler/pro out, and it just seems like it's catering to the Pros, something we don't need. STUPID RULE a NO VOTE. 

To decrease Numbers easiest would be a limit on the # of dogs any handler can run, that and/or regional qualification, at a higher MNH Standard. Oh wait I'm reading this out of the HRC Grand rule book, please disregard 

As an amateur I could get behind running a regional, while I don't want to really travel for a National every year, and I don't want to run with 700-1000 dogs. I just might be tempted to run a higher standard regional year after year, could be fun, especially if it could limit the # of tests I need to run the next year to qualify for it. Only please limit the # of dogs any one person can run, throwing for 20-30 of the same guys dogs, is boring for the workers, even if the handler is good looking :?


----------



## Willie Alderson (Jan 26, 2011)

I like DoubleHaul's idea! "Why not split the thing into several MNs? Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field. Plus, that would allow for more fact finding junkets for the MNRC powers that be, so they would be all over that"

I think it would work. Have a MN in each time zone, and rotate locations in each specific time zone. Dog still has to qualify, and I think it would get more people to run dogs, therefore generating more money. Isn't that what the AKC is all about...$$$$?


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Willie Alderson said:


> Isn't that what the AKC is all about...$$$$?


As far as I know, AKC's income from a Master National is the application fee (nominal) and the recording fee which is $3.50 per dog. The Master National Retriever Club pays these fees. Owners pay Entry Express their $4.50 handling fee. 

With an entry fee of $350, it is the MNRC who gets the lion's share of the income, not AKC.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Willie Alderson said:


> I like DoubleHaul's idea! "Why not split the thing into several MNs? Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field.


The problem with this is the MH test is not STANDARD across geography, wrong or right different areas have different levels of test, you only have to look at the MNH pass rate in the different divisions to see disparity that's with only a single test. Now look at the pass rate of particular areas in regard to just the MH level tests, there's a reason pros travel . Setting it up as 4 different National tests, region 1 might be significantly harder to pass the test or get that important MNH title, than region 4. You could not guarantee the same MNH level of test in different areas. Could we even guarantee the same # of series, historically series Number have been going down, it's not even 2 complete MH tests now. What about the same # of marks/blinds? Would we now be National shopping? for a pro with 30 dogs to run-pass (it would be stupid not to).


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Here's some math:

My young dog has a chance at getting 6 or 7 Master passes in time to qualify for the West Coast MN next year. If we do, we'll go and because of the MN being held in my region, we're going to try like heck and spend the entry fees and travel time to try and qualify. But I'm sure as heck NOT going to make the effort for the MNs in the other 3 regions. 
Summary: I'll only spend the money once every four years.

If there was a regional MN every year, I'd spend the money every year to make the effort to qualify. And if we happened to pass the regional, I'd probably feel special and spend the money to go the National at least 3 times. Summary: That's four times the amount of money for the MNRC, local clubs and AKC.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

After reading about half so far all I can say is "Follow the money" and you might find that is the bottom line. Not the dogs, not the amateur handler nor the pro. All about bucks. I have seen this in too many situations in my lifetime and here we go again.

If I had a vote it would be a regional that would be open to any MH titled dog bypassing the 5 of 7 or 6 or 8 or whatever. Tougher than the weekly event. That would eliminate the pros bringing 14 dogs to the national because some would be dropped and keep single dog owner/handlers on an even field. Also would make owners decide if they wanted to go to the Master Nat.

In summary, your MH would be able to go to the regional every year because of the MH title. Just like the NCAA basketball stuff, a tourni system. But have it done before the opening of hunting seasons!!!!! Not in the middle of the upnorth seasons.


----------



## tracyw (Aug 28, 2008)

helencalif said:


> As far as I know, AKC's income from a Master National is the application fee (nominal) and the recording fee which is $3.50 per dog. The Master National Retriever Club pays these fees. Owners pay Entry Express their $4.50 handling fee.
> 
> With an entry fee of $350, it is the MNRC who gets the lion's share of the income, not AKC.


Helen, the AKC does make money off of dogs running their tests. I don't know how much but with the shear numbers, they are making money. If 700 dogs run (at a minimum) 6 AKC master test each to qualify to run the MN, then 4200 x what the akc makes per dog (even at $3.50 per dog, they make $14,700) is a good bit of money!


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

Maryland allows discussions now???? Things must have really changed . . .  lol


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

How is the proposal either approved or disapproved? Who votes?


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

I am opposed to this proposal.


I fail to see how this move will create more manageable numbers for the MN. It will most definitely increase revenue for AKC.


My personal bottom line is I want to go to the MN. I train and test in order to qualify to attend. Since I live in NY, I am less interested in traveling to California but if that was my shot I'd still go for it.


I would rather see the MN explore regional tests or regional qualifying tests. I agree there is some merit to a 2-3 year old Master Hunter not having the maturity to handle the National, I just don't agree with this attitude as justification for the By-Law change.


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

Clubs that are members of the master national vote


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> The problem with this is the MH test is not STANDARD across geography, wrong or right different areas have different levels of test, you only have to look at the MNH pass rate in the different divisions to see disparity that's with only a single test. Now look at the pass rate of particular areas in regard to just the MH level tests, there's a reason pros travel . Setting it up as 4 different National tests, region 1 might be significantly harder to pass the test or get that important MNH title, than region 4. You could not guarantee the same MNH level of test in different areas. Could we even guarantee the same # of series, historically series Number have been going down, it's not even 2 complete MH tests now. What about the same # of marks/blinds? Would we now be National shopping? for a pro with 30 dogs to run (it would be stupid not to)


I don't know any pros that travel out of their regions to find easier MH tests. Some will travel if the season is ended in their area and they need MH passes for the MN or take a trip or two for giggles.

If you had multiple tests, how would one know which was easier in advance? It would be easy to make the dogs from one region run that test, although that would take away from the enjoyment of the MN for some folks who like to run because they see very different grounds from their own.

Hunt tests are against a standard. Every weekend some are easier than others--even within the same tests, different flights end up being easier or harder but a pass is a pass is a pass.

At the end of the day, if you want to play dog games at a 'national' level, you had better have a lot of time or a lot of money and it is best to have both. So, I don't worry about it much one way or another. It seems that this proposal would reduce some of the numbers at the MN, but isn't going to have a huge impact beyond the folks who are just qualifying to run the one in their area. It is sad to see that but I don't think it would make a big difference.

My concern is what impact, if any, it would have on the local weekend tests, particularly my own clubs. That is far less clear to me. It seems it would reduce the surge we saw at weekend tests when the MN was in our area a little bit, but not a ton as lots of MH dogs only run the MN when it is close as well. Other than that, I could see it increasing entries slightly or reducing them on the margin. Hard to say. If pressed, I would probably vote against it since I don't see much impact to the weekend tests and I don't particularly care if the MN has huge entries. I'd rather see folks get the chance to run a young MH when they could than not.


----------



## knash3 (May 17, 2012)

This is defined as a capacity problem, so needs a capacity solution. Not higher standards (scores or # passes), not judges choosing a winner each week. Having multiple National tests at multiple locations increases the capacity, eases travel and cost burdens, increases participant capacity. When the grocery store lines get long, they open more check-out lines. They don't send home the customers who aren't spending more than $X or have fewer than #Y items. Capacity...


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I read this thread, along with all the others on the subject, with only an audience's interest. I just don't worry about the MN.

Having said that, I would offer a couple of observations.

First of all, I don't envision the AKC changing anything that will impact the qualification to enter the MN. They aren't going to change the scoring of w/e tests to provide a winner, top three, or a ranking so that a % can be selected from each test. I just don't see them doing anything like this for any number of reasons not the least of which is simply that the qualification procedure just shouldn't have any impact on their testing program.

Second, the ideas of a "regional qualifier" fail to recognize the impact on local clubs and personnel. Is this qualifier going to be run under the same MN rules? This will require two tests or 6 series running a week. For all of those who've advocated regional qualifiers, are you going to work for a week or more? Further, if your dog qualifies at the regional, then it's off to the MN. So now, you'll have two weeks each year not just one. If the regional qualifier isn't going to use the same rules as the MN, how would it differ from a simple w/e test?

All of this is to say that there has not been a universally acceptable idea brought forward yet. In short, for every idea there are both pro's and con's and the con's for each seem really significant if not insurmountable.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

No opinion on MN requirements, but the observation that they have so many entrants because there's no other hunt title beyond MH. If AKC offered another goal (other than field trials), it would provide an outlet other than MN.

Either provide placements for MH and allow dogs to accumulate points for an MH championship, as in obedience, or break out of the 3-tiered title mold and introduce another hunt test level beyond MH. Advantage of the first option is that judges already have score sheets.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

*if* anything i find *slightly confusing *gives the average person a tension headache.
*then* because i find this discussion *very confusing*, i feel sorry for those of you with average intelligence!;-)

i am pleased that i do not serve in a capacity that would require me to propose solutions to problems in events where the very opinionated and all knowing "dog people" are participants. that said, i hope a solution is ultimately found that makes everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

While some might show up for the MN a day or two in advance, many spend a week prior pre MN training. The same might happen at regional qualifiers. More land, more help, more judges. Will MN staff need to be on hand? All of this equates to time and money for everyone.
Remember, this is MN's problem to fix, not AKC's. I doubt seriously if AKC is going to change their weekend grading system to accomodate MN's capacity problem.
Also agree this proposal might mean more tests would need to be run by those affected dogs. That, combined with clubs ability to limit entries, might make those passes tougher to get.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Wayne Nutt said:


> How is the proposal either approved or disapproved? Who votes?


Clubs who are member clubs of the MNRC vote. Several wrinkles for voting ... clubs who meet only once a year or once in a quarter may not have a general meeting prior to the MNRC's June 15 deadline for the vote on this revised amendment. 

I belong to 3 clubs in No. California who will not be having a general meeting prior to the June 15 deadline.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...


++++++1000, that would do it. This is suppose to be a game for lthe amatures. I do not mind the pros and sometime the clubs need their entries, but when it comes to running the Grand or MN it should be owner / handler. Also a limit on how many one owner can handle


----------



## paigekjones (May 27, 2011)

MNRC-Owner handler seems like a good idea to me


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

I think the proposal is stupid. What should they care that my 2 yo. quals. for the MN? As I read the letter of explanation preceeding the proposal, it seems unduly focused on the age of the dogs attending. If they think, "it does not necessarily benefit the young dog", then just establish an age limit to attend the MN. Dog's 3 and over with a title and 6 passes in that fiscal year. I don't see it passing. And if it did pass, I'd be hard pressed to find 12 test in my area to run, nor would I want to expend that sort of money in this economy, and I'm betting many others feel that way too and wouldn't stay in the program.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

tracyw said:


> Helen, the AKC does make money off of dogs running their tests. I don't know how much but with the shear numbers, they are making money. If 700 dogs run (at a minimum) 6 AKC master test each to qualify to run the MN, then 4200 x what the akc makes per dog (even at $3.50 per dog, they make $14,700) is a good bit of money!


Yes, I know that AKC makes money off of dogs running their events. A recording fee of $3.50 per entry is paid to AKC after every event -- whether it is a hunt test or a field trial. The recording fee is paid by the club holding the event. The club also pays an application fee to AKC when they apply to hold the event. The application fee is $25 if you are an AKC member club. It is $35 if you are not a member club. If you are a member club, the application fee is waived for the first event the club has in the year.

Of course, AKC makes money for these events. They also have expenses for those events. This is just a short list:
AKC Performance Events staff are paid employees. Time is spent by AKC staff to verify the information on every event application before it is approved. AKC prints a number of materials used by event secretaries. Staff time is spent preparing these kits which are mailed to all event secretaries. Every event secretary is shipped 2 rules & regulation booklets, booklets on how to handle problems, and numerous forms to fill out to report field trial wins, placements, and JAMS or hunt test pass/fail. AKC staff time is spent verifying all information on the winners, placers, JAMS, and passes. They check all of the info -- dog name, registration number, owner name etc. to make sure it is accurate.

AKC staff time is spent on recording and keeping track of winners, placements, JAMS, and passes. When a dog titles, AKC staff time is spent preparing a certificate and then it is mailed to the dog owner at no cost. 

700 dogs x 6 events @ $3.50 per dog... $14,700. Think of the time (salaries) to process the information for 700 dogs x 6 events (info on 4200 dogs) plus the cost of printed materials and postage for those 6 events. I think paying the $25 or $35 application fee and then the $3.50 per dog could be seen by some as a bargain. 

AKC has to make money on Performance Events to cover their many operations, including the salaries of AKC representatives who attend events occasionally to make sure the clubs are following AKC rules and regulations.


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

LIke someone said earlier, there are mature dogs form the FT arena that would fall under the "must have an MH, plus 6 passes rule and have to get a max of 12 passes.

I like the owner/handler idea, but it's not realistic - the handlers that have pros run their dogs because they are not good handlers. And handlers who work and can't go to tests and have to keep a job in order to have a retirement income so they can be full time handlers once they retire!

Eric is correct about the extra work that Regional can bring to clubs.
The easiest way for Regionals to work is to take a club's normal HT weekend and CALL it a regional qualifier. One requirement for the club could be to have one judge at each stake be a past MN judge, with the IDEA that the judging should be tougher. But you know how varied that could play out around the country.

Or 2 clubs get together and hold a special 3 master stake if the AKC will go along with that idea (with the MN judges as well.

There's no way to have more than one MN. Too much to plan for and the Board and the MN trailer/equipment has to be there as well.

Debbie


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Don't you think that somewhere along the way amateur handlers have gotten shoved to the back of the Master National bus?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Brad B said:


> As I read the letter of explanation preceeding the proposal, it seems unduly focused on the age of the dogs attending. If they think, "it does not necessarily benefit the young dog", then just establish an age limit to attend the MN.


That is what they said. Do you believe it? I don't. I think they are looking for a way to reduce entries that will cause the least amount of uproar and came up with that story to justify it. 

I think that if the MNRC wants to limit entries they should propose a limit on entries and not come up with a bogus story about concern for younger dogs. To me, this proposal hurts most the folks who are likely to step up and try to qualify and run a MN when it is close to them--those for whom the MN might be a once in a lifetime experience--and I think it is particularly mean spirited to reduce entries in a way that would disproportionally affect those folks.


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> That is what they said. Do you believe it? I don't. I think they are looking for a way to reduce entries that will cause the least amount of uproar and came up with that story to justify it.
> 
> I think that if the MNRC wants to limit entries they should propose a limit on entries and not come up with a bogus story about concern for younger dogs. To me, this proposal hurts most the folks who are likely to step up and try to qualify and run a MN when it is close to them--those for whom the MN might be a once in a lifetime experience--and I think it is particularly mean spirited to reduce entries in a way that would disproportionally affect those folks.



I agree. If the MN happens to be in your region within the time frame you earn an MH and qualify to attend the MN so be it. If you pay attention to the Average Age of a MN qualifying dog (via Retriever Results) how many under 3 or even 5 are there?


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

A MH title is a MH title no matter the age. It's silly to start to decide by age/experience who should qualify by age.
There are Master Dogs at two three years old talented, trained, ready to compete at the National level. Conversely there are seven and eight year old dogs who needed 20 passes to get thier titles who will never be able to compete or even qualify at anything other then a weekend test. Some hunt tests have small numbers, few pros, easy tests or follow judges that have reps for passing everything. Don't have a solution for numbers outside of raising qualification scores
As are done in obedience trials and that won't fly, but, putting young MH dogs in the backseat shouldn't fly either.


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Don't you think that somewhere along the way amateur handlers have gotten shoved to the back of the Master National bus?


No. Why do you think that?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

It is more economical to send your dog with a pro. Most amat can't take off that long a period while the pros can go down way ahead of time and start training. Most pros pool together rent a house and already have training areas. Amat shows up and he is attending a meeting on how to work wingers etc.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> A MH title is a MH title no matter the age. It's silly to start to decide by age/experience who should qualify by age.
> There are Master Dogs at two three years old talented, trained, ready to compete at the National level. Conversely there are seven and eight year old dogs who needed 20 passes to get thier titles who will never be able to compete or even qualify at anything other then a weekend test. Some hunt tests have small numbers, few pros, easy tests or follow judges that have reps for passing everything. Don't have a solution for numbers outside of raising qualification scores
> As are done in obedience trials and that won't fly, but, putting young MH dogs in the backseat shouldn't fly either.


Earl I'm kinda with you.I don't know whysomething like the obedience model wouldn't work.maybe not necessarily place the dogs just identify the ones that did excellent limit it to the top ten percent of the starters. Then to qualify for the master national you have to get say 5 excellents within the calendar year from three different judgess or something like that


----------



## Gary Southall (Jan 17, 2012)

knash3 said:


> This is defined as a capacity problem, so needs a capacity solution. Not higher standards (scores or # passes), not judges choosing a winner each week. Having multiple National tests at multiple locations increases the capacity, eases travel and cost burdens, increases participant capacity. When the grocery store lines get long, they open more check-out lines. They don't send home the customers who aren't spending more than $X or have fewer than #Y items. Capacity...


This is the best way and you must run and qualify in your (owners) zone.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> maybe not necessarily place the dogs just identify the ones that did excellent limit it to the top ten percent of the starters.


 That's a really great point to consider.

There is no need to pick a winner in Hunt Tests. They don't need to establish separation.
Two or more dogs could tie at "first place" and their is no reason to have a "tie breaker" series.

The primary focus should still remain on testing the dogs against a standard.


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

I'm just now starting running at the Master level. I know many dogs around the age of two that can compete with any dog I've seen. (I wish I were one of them as we are still training). I see the 12 MH passes as a money deal for the AKC to try to thin out participants. I would hope AKC would try to make a standard a standard and keep it a standard, instead of morphing the rules to limit participation. That said, my point would be that I would hope the standard of a few years back when a dog got a MN pass, that I would be held to the same standard when and if I chose to participate in a MN event in the future. The changes of rules last Dec 1st, and now possibly a new entry standard seems to create a division from the dog a year or two ago, to the new standards being proposed today. Just adding my two worthless pennies.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Byron Musick said:


> I see the 12 MH passes as a money deal for the AKC to try to thin out participants. I would hope AKC would try to make a standard a standard and keep it a standard, instead of morphing the rules to limit participation.


Just to be clear, the proposal is from the MNRC, not the AKC. MNRC is responsible for the MN and AKC is responsible for the weekend tests. While the AKC isn't ever going to turn down more money--if in fact this would bring it some--it has nothing to do with this particular proposal.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I don't have a dog in this fight. But, I would appreciate some clarification from those who do. As I understand it, the proposed Amendment requires 6 passes after a dog obtains its MH. Why is everyone referring to 12 MH passes.

Thanks in advance for the clarification


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. But, I would appreciate some clarification from those who do. As I understand it, the proposed Amendment requires 6 passes after a dog obtains its MH. Why is everyone referring to 12 MH passes.
> 
> Thanks in advance for the clarification


The 12 passes would only be for a new MH. Previously, the 5 or 6 passes earned before the dog got its MH title, counted for MN qualification purposes. They no longer count, only passes after the title is earned. So a young dog that earned its MH during the MN qualifying year, would need 6 additional passes that year to qualify for the MN.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

The more folks I talk with seem to have less interest in the MN than before. Mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general. I can count 5 folks I know and train with occasionally who used to have their main goal be getting to the MN. 

I don't think the plate seems as shiny as it used to be.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Bubba said:


> Just press the EASY button.
> 
> MNRC=Owner/Handler
> 
> ...


Makes perfect sense to me. But then again, I shudder at the thought of watching someone else running my dogs. HPW


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Great will solve the volumn problem. Lots of suggestions that require someone else to do the work. I have talked to several on the MN committee. Here's a suggestion that will pucker some. Move to a permanent site ie Demopolos. They thave the grounds, and the workers, and the experience. And the town would welcome the MN with open arms.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Any Handler (Pro-Amateur) can Run 5-8 dogs period, it makes those that run in mass, have to pick the best dogs to be that 5-8, any trip divided btw 5-8 owners is completely doable, heck an Amateur does it with no clients for 1-2 dogs. This eliminates the 20-30 dogs handlers, who are often times to busy to help at a stake. Easy quick, less dogs, the Amateur is not affected, there's still a place for the Pro, and for those who want to run more dogs, it brings in other handlers, who can help at the event, air-run dogs on the same truck, and no-one (contestants, judges, setup workers) is waiting for any single handler (pre-line prep. honor situation, retrieving-airing dogs, etc.).

Don't hold back my 2-3 year old MH pocket rocket, she has just as much chance as any, and probably a lot more than some. I run my own dogs & take care of all my own expenses. I don't pony up an entry fee-travel, for a dog without a pretty good shot.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> The 12 passes would only be for a new MH. Previously, the 5 or 6 passes earned before the dog got its MH title, counted for MN qualification purposes. They no longer count, only passes after the title is earned. So a young dog that earned its MH during the MN qualifying year, would need 6 additional passes that year to qualify for the MN.




Julie

thank you

Ted


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

wojo said:


> Great will solve the volumn problem. Lots of suggestions that require someone else to do the work. I have talked to several on the MN committee. Here's a suggestion that will pucker some. Move to a permanent site ie Demopolos. They thave the grounds, and the workers, and the experience. And the town would welcome the MN with open arms.



That's the way the oldest and most prestigous dog event in the United States works.... The Championships at Ames Plantation.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

wojo said:


> Great will solve the volumn problem. Lots of suggestions that require someone else to do the work. I have talked to several on the MN committee. Here's a suggestion that will pucker some. Move to a permanent site ie Demopolos. They thave the grounds, and the workers, and the experience. And the town would welcome the MN with open arms.


workers....... the locals told us last year that the inmates were to be slowly moved out of that facility.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> The more folks I talk with seem to have less interest in the MN than before. Mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general.


Paul,

Please explain your saying "mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general". What "politics of the event" are in play ? I think of politics (in field trials) as being crooked judges who award their pros and/ or their friends. Or the reverse ... judges who have some grudge against an owner or handler and withhold a win or placement from people they don't like.

Are you inferring that MNRC officers and/or Board members get passes for the dogs they run ? 

You also said "due to the politics of the club in general". I am probably naive, but I don't see how the MNRC club can be political. It is comprised of member clubs from all over the country. I don't see any collective cohesion among the member clubs which would make the "club" political. 

So are you referring to the officers and Board members of the MNRC as being the political body? 

Like Ted, I don't have a dog in this fight. I am just curious. I don't see how this amendment proposed by the MNRC Officers and Board members is going to solve their high entry situation that has become a management problem.

Helen


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Any Handler (Pro-Amateur) can Run 5-8 dogs period, it makes those that run in mass, have to pick the best dogs to be that 5-8, any trip divided btw 5-8 owners is completely doable, heck an Amateur does it with no clients for 1-2 dogs. This eliminates the 20-30 dogs handlers, who are often times to busy to help at a stake. Easy quick, less dogs, the Amateur is not affected, there's still a place for the Pro, and for those who want to run more dogs, it brings in other handlers, who can help at the event, air-run dogs on the same truck, and no-one (contestants, judges, setup workers) is waiting for any single handler (pre-line prep. honor situation, retrieving-airing dogs, etc.).
> 
> Don't hold back my 2-3 year old MH pocket rocket, she has just as much chance as any, and probably a lot more than some. I run my own dogs & take care of all my own expenses. I don't pony up an entry fee-travel, for a dog without a pretty good shot.


This is really the only good fix for the number of dogs. Everyone is happy, all can play just cannot play with so many dogs. Pro can pick their best for that year and run them. It works for the Grand. Until this year, handlers were limited to 8 dogs, not change to 12. They should have left it at 8 in my opinion.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Tom-

The inmates that worked on the cattle ranch when it was a cattle ranch and catfish farm have been moved. This was about 100 or so. They've been replaced by maybe 40-50 inmates who are housed there as a work-release center plus about 6-8 folks who work on the cattle ranch keeping it up for the dog events. 
when we had 100 inmates, it was never hard finding 30-40 to work a double test. Now that the population has been severely reduced, there can be some problems. I worked a Junior there 2 wks ago and all we could get was 3 workers. In the past, a Jr test would have twice that number.

The idea of having an event equal to the MN there every year is frightening because it would mean 1 or 2 w/e tests by the local clubs would have to be given up every year. The idea of giving away w/e tests to hold the MN is really sort of an anathema. It runs counter to why people participate in the clubs.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

helencalif said:


> Paul,
> 
> Please explain your saying "mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general". What "politics of the event" are in play ? I think of politics (in field trials) as being crooked judges who award their pros and/ or their friends. Or the reverse ... judges who have some grudge against an owner or handler and withhold a win or placement from people they don't like.
> 
> ...



Politics at play for Judges selections, "perceived" changes in the weekend tests(aka "mini-master nationals"), elections of officers, expenditures on parties, etc. Local club members look closely at the Scuttlebutt, true and relative or not. Local clubs must pay their dues knowing or disaproving with fear if, they don't continue to be a MN club, their entries will drop because they no longer hold the coveted MN designation on their event. Mike Moscowitz has addressed this before and his club acted accordingly. 

I wonder what percentage of each local club membership actually will attend the event? Is it 1%? 5%? 10%?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> Tom-
> 
> The inmates that worked on the cattle ranch when it was a cattle ranch and catfish farm have been moved. This was about 100 or so. They've been replaced by maybe 40-50 inmates who are housed there as a work-release center plus about 6-8 folks who work on the cattle ranch keeping it up for the dog events.
> when we had 100 inmates, it was never hard finding 30-40 to work a double test. Now that the population has been severely reduced, there can be some problems. I worked a Junior there 2 wks ago and all we could get was 3 workers. In the past, a Jr test would have twice that number.
> ...


Thanks, Eric. I was hoping you would respond.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Here's a revolutionary idea, let's make the weekend HT a true test of a finished gun dog. 

1. In at least one triple marking series, a blind retrieve shall be made before the marks are picked up but after all three marks have fallen. The blind shall be longer than any of the three marks and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple.

2. At least one marking series shall have the working dog positioned at least 10 feet from the handler.

3. At least one series will require the dog to work from a boat, field blind or other station commonly used in hunting situations.

I'm sure there are other suggestions to increase the realism and difficulty of the weekend test.

Only true finished dogs could earn a mh then and mnh would become a real honor.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Here's a revolutionary idea, let's make the weekend HT a true test of a finished gun dog.
> 
> 1. In at least one triple marking series, a blind retrieve shall be made before the marks are picked up but after all three marks have fallen. The blind shall be longer than any of the three marks and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple.
> 
> ...



Here's an example of what is driving the problem: This is from a local hunt test and one MH stake out of two. The other had very similar statistics. 

Master A: 42 dogs entered. 

22 dogs who are professionally trained by very well respected trainers who travel to warmer climates failed. Of the 20 who passed, I know 14 were also professionally trained. 3 I don't know their affliations or training background. Few were Am handled. 

Is this what needs to happen to edit the number of dogs qualifying for the Master National? Is this healthy for the sport? Personally, I feel my odds of winning a field trial ribbon are better than passing a "standard".


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Personally, I feel my odds of winning a field trial ribbon are better than passing a "standard".


 Really?
I don't feel that way at all.

Even if there was an Open and an Amateur Master stake, I can't imagine that I would prefer to be running the Am. 

But, neither I nor my dogs have any business running in a Field Trial. Maybe in a O/H qual. But, that's a pretty big maybe.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Really?
> I don't feel that way at all.
> 
> Even if there was an Open and an Amateur Master stake, I can't imagine that I would prefer to be running the Am.
> ...


After a lot of thought my competitive nature has returned and I feel better about losing than failing.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> After a lot of thought my competitive nature has returned and I feel better about losing than failing.


 Hahahahah!

Yeah, that does make sense!


----------



## 2goldens (Jan 16, 2005)

Scott Shafer said:


> the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02


I like this idea....could work.


----------



## 2goldens (Jan 16, 2005)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Here's some math:
> 
> My young dog has a chance at getting 6 or 7 Master passes in time to qualify for the West Coast MN next year. If we do, we'll go and because of the MN being held in my region, we're going to try like heck and spend the entry fees and travel time to try and qualify. But I'm sure as heck NOT going to make the effort for the MNs in the other 3 regions.
> Summary: I'll only spend the money once every four years.
> ...


Like your thinking!


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> The more folks I talk with seem to have less interest in the MN than before. Mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general. I can count 5 folks I know and train with occasionally who used to have their main goal be getting to the MN.
> 
> I don't think the plate seems as shiny as it used to be.


Paul, do you think a reason to the feelings your friends have is that they feel the MN is "watered down"? With so many dogs now qualifying perhaps the prestige of the plate is not what it once was?


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

"and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple." Only way to do that is have a live duck running around. Then how would the handler put the dog on it since my experience in the field has me usually not knowing where the crip went after I have shot the triple. 

Like the ideas however unrealistic it seems on first read. I will think on it a bit. 

I like #2 but #3 has the "field blind" layout? in play and we know how that is perceived by some. 

Hunting situation? How many handlers hunt? Of the 15 or 20 handlers I am around the most there are 3 of us that hunt at all.

Maybe the way to limit the MNHT numbers is to open it only to owners who have three years straight of hunting licenses in their possession. To include those owners who put their dogs on a pro truck for the duration.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Greetings: All of these posts are good. However, the regionals, split Pro/Am, preliminary, raise scores, raise number of qualifications etc have been proposed in the past. And in the past all were voted on at the MN annual meetings. Many many clubs had pros serve as their delegates. The pros will not vote for something that will deminish their pay check. Not anti pro but the sport will never be a true "amateur" sport until all the delegates are amateurs with amateur interests.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Wade said:


> Paul, do you think a reason to the feelings your friends have is that they feel the MN is "watered down"? With so many dogs now qualifying perhaps the prestige of the plate is not what it once was?



No, I think what the major complaints in discussion is that you have to have a full time professional train your dog to pass a weekend test. What's become watered down is the flood of mini-master national weekend tests mentality. Even the guys that work hard on the weekends and have great marking dogs who complete tests are being penciled out after honestly completing the work to the written standard. 

Where can the only blame lie with the current mentality of the AKC HT? I don't think I'll run a hunt test this year. I know quite a few others who feel the same way. A good example is a local spring hunt test. Last year, 69 Master Hunters were entered. The event closes on Monday and right now only 22 are entered. I know of at least 5 folks I train with who aren't entering or planning on running many hunt tests this year. Everybody says, "no, MN does not and will not be affecting our local tests, we won't put on mini-master nationals". Then, the big push comes to bring in judges who are current or up and coming master national judges? Did I miss something here? Kind of a lot of double speak going on in my opinion.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

LabskeBill said:


> Greetings: All of these posts are good. However, the regionals, split Pro/Am, preliminary, raise scores, raise number of qualifications etc have been proposed in the past. And in the past all were voted on at the MN annual meetings. Many many clubs had pros serve as their delegates. The pros will not vote for something that will deminish their pay check. Not anti pro but the sport will never be a true "amateur" sport until all the delegates are amateurs with amateur interests.


I love my Pro's, I love the work they all do, I love the fact they help people make the most of their animals. The problem at any and every event is this and it hurts folks to say it or admit it. When a truck with 15 dogs shows up at a test, a volunteer run, non-profit event they only bring themselves to run their dogs. When 15 dogs show up, one in each car, in a single crate, 15 volunteers usually open the car door.(well, maybe 5 out of 15  ) 

I see all pro's try to help out when they have time but, lets face it, they don't and shouldn't. They are being paid to focus on running the dog at the end of the lead. Not shoot fliers, marshall, re-bird, run a winger, deliver lunches, move stakes, pack trailers and/or cook judges dinners. 

Unless the sport somehow forces the owners into participating, the growth will cause rapid fee increases to cover hiring all paid workers and this will turn into a "for profit" adventure to keep the sport alive.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I love my Pro's, I love the work they all do, I love the fact they help people make the most of their animals. The problem at any and every event is this and it hurts folks to say it or admit it. When a truck with 15 dogs shows up at a test, a volunteer run, non-profit event they only bring themselves to run their dogs. When 15 dogs show up, one in each car, in a single crate, 15 volunteers usually open the car door.(well, maybe 5 out of 15  )
> 
> I see all pro's try to help out when they have time but, lets face it, they don't and shouldn't. They are being paid to focus on running the dog at the end of the lead. Not shoot fliers, marshall, re-bird, run a winger, deliver lunches, move stakes, pack trailers and/or cook judges dinners.
> 
> Unless the sport somehow forces the owners into participating, the growth will cause rapid fee increases to cover hiring all paid workers and this will turn into a "for profit" adventure to keep the sport alive.


Well said.
I'd add as well that nowhere in the MNRC Mission Statement is there a reference to "best of the best." If the MNRC wants to make that it's operating mission it can. But it will require a wholesale change in the rules as well as the operating statements of the MNRC. Much as the Grand has its own set of rules and an expected pass rate of 20% +/-. That's not something I'm endorsing simply suggesting it's the logical outcome of a "best of the best" mission.
If the numbers are too big, cut the numbers. Limit dogs per handler. Or make it a OH event. Put a cap on the total and draw lots for entries. Require all qualifying passes to by OH. Require 6 of 8 to Q. None are perfect. All will raise howls by some. But nothing in life is perfect. Pick a pathway and stick with it.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

The phrase is cream of the crop, not best of the best.

/paul


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

lbbuckler said:


> That's what the Master National's position is. They cite that there are huge logistic challenges to putting on a 700+ dog event. If the grounds are available, then there aren't enough hotels & restaurants and vice versa. Their letter also states that "the average age of the entered dogs has moved downward.....These youngsters typically go out in the 1st or 2nd series, as they are not yet mature or seasoned enough to handle big tests and the pressure of a 9 day event". I've never ran a Master National so I don't know if the argument holds true or not. I do believe that holding a 700+ dog event has its logistical challenges, but I'm just not sure this is the best way to address that problem.


I think it is a pretty good idea, the young dogs that is has taken 10 or 12 passes to get their master title for the most part are not ready for the Master Nationals .


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Scott Shafer said:


> the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02


Sounds good initially but by adding another step like that would it be fair to the handlers who have females that may be in heat that week end and not be able to compete after fulfilling all the other requirements?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

jacduck said:


> "and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple." Only way to do that is have a live duck running around. Then how would the handler put the dog on it since my experience in the field has me usually not knowing where the crip went after I have shot the triple.
> 
> Like the ideas however unrealistic it seems on first read. I will think on it a bit.
> 
> ...


You don't need a live duck running around, just a 150 yard blind through three <100 yard retrieves.

If putting your hunting dog in a "field blind" is an issue you need to train more.

I'm reading Paul talking about people being penciled out after completing the work, where out this way it seems the complaints I hear are about unrealistic tests and ****ty dog work getting by... 

Don't know. I like a straightforward test, especially if I have to judge it, but this is what I have been hearing from participants.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I have a dog that ran 3 MNHTs and passed one of those. I also own another MH dog, but I plan to run him in the FT game instead. Over the ten years I have played the game, the dogs have gotten to be very good and the training has advanced as well. The pedigrees of most dogs running are looking more and more like the roster in the FT game. I know something must be done to reduce the ridiculously high numbers in the MNHT, but as time progresses I am afraid we will still have to go back again over this issue repeatedly. Certainly, the high entry numbers are a deterrent to me from vying for another return to the MNHT.

PS As a suggestion to put out there for discussion: How about requiring a MNHT participant be also QAA. I have heard it argued that any MH dog could be competitive in a qualy.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Clubs who are member clubs of the MNRC vote. Several wrinkles for voting ... clubs who meet only once a year or once in a quarter may not have a general meeting prior to the MNRC's June 15 deadline for the vote on this revised amendment.
> 
> I belong to 3 clubs in No. California who will not be having a general meeting prior to the June 15 deadline.


Is a general membership Mtg required to obtain / vote the clubs position on "this" matter ? 

Wouldn't the duly elected Officers/BOD be allowed to represent their constituants wishes and vote on this matter in a specail mtg ?

john


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

How many of you that are having heart burn with the Master National actually participate. Seems to me "lets change because it's successful" is a game people play . Whats is wrong with large entries??? Last year was a great event. The MN is a seperate organization so play the game if you want or stay with the weekend HT and have FUN.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> Don't you think that somewhere along the way amateur handlers have gotten shoved to the back of the Master National bus?


Tom , my friend , there is a difference between the back of the bus and under the bus........can of worms big enough for both of us regards..................LOL


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Hudson Highland Hunting Retriever Association , at the spring meeting today , held in conjunction with our ICE BREAKER event , voted NO on the proposed by laws change.
I did not bring this up during the discussion , but one thing I thought of , that I did not see in this thread (didn't read all comments) , is IMO ,we should wait until we see how the rule change limiting entries on the weekends plays out before instituting more change . Went 14 for 14 on shooting flyer pigeons today regards ...


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

John Kelder said:


> Hudson Highland Hunting Retriever Association , at the spring meeting today , held in conjunction with our ICE BREAKER event , voted NO on the proposed by laws change.
> I did not bring this up during the discussion , but one thing I thought of , that I did not see in this thread (didn't read all comments) , is IMO ,we should wait until we see how the rule change limiting entries on the weekends plays out before instituting more change . Went 14 for 14 on shooting flyer pigeons today regards ...


Kudos on the pigeon flyers Mr. Kelder. 

Kudos for Club Vote "NO", and I agree with your thinking here, gee willies, can we have some time to collect and analyze data on limited entries before we split the baby AGAIN!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I am not saying it won't, but how do limiting entries at the club level affect the MN? As I understood it, the purpose behind limiting entries was to help clubs with grounds, help etc.


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> I am not saying it won't, but how do limiting entries at the club level affect the MN? As I understood it, the purpose behind limiting entries was to help clubs with grounds, help etc.


Hmmm, Lets review: AKC agrees to Limit Master HT entries to 60 (to Help Clubs because of grounds/workers/blah blah), Revenue down. Next thing you know, Master National is pitching the argument of "we need to lower entries for the same reasons", BUT......The SOLUTION IS *RUN SIX MORE MASTER TESTS after you TITLE*(REVENUE UP FOR AKC), but pitch the selling point of young dogs not being able to Handle a MN to make the entries more manageable?

That's an orgy of strange bed fellows I want a Fly's eye view of.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> I am not saying it won't, but how do limiting entries at the club level affect the MN? As I understood it, the purpose behind limiting entries was to help clubs with grounds, help etc.


You are spot on with the reasoning - but a possible side effect is less qualifiers for the MN because folks didn't get in on enough tests in their area.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

cpmm665 said:


> Hmmm, Lets review: AKC agrees to Limit Master HT entries to 60 (to Help Clubs because of grounds/workers/blah blah), Revenue down. Next thing you know, Master National is pitching the argument of "we need to lower entries for the same reasons", BUT......The SOLUTION IS *RUN SIX MORE MASTER TESTS after you TITLE*(REVENUE UP FOR AKC), but pitch the selling point of young dogs not being able to Handle a MN to make the entries more manageable?
> 
> That's an orgy of strange bed fellows I want a Fly's eye view of.


AND - if the concern is so great for what dogs can and cannot handle , why not require a dog MUST go thru JH and SH before being eligible to run a Master ? I do not agree with that solution BTW......

and you have strange viewing habits Ms. Cindy .....LOL


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

This thread has a lot of debate on solutions to a real or percieved problem of too many MN entries. The truth is there is only one rule proposal on the docket. I have contacted the officers of my clubs and expressed my opinion. I want my clubs to vote NO on the proposed amendment. Regardless of your opinion, I urge all to make their views known to your club.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

John Kelder said:


> You are spot on with the reasoning - but a possible side effect is less qualifiers for the MN because folks didn't get in on enough tests in their area.


How can we determine if the limited entries causes a lower than normal (whatever that is) MN entry? Seems like most people, especially pros, will just go on to the next test.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> How can we determine if the limited entries causes a lower than normal (whatever that is) MN entry? Seems like most people, especially pros, will just go on to the next test.


I think it will only be determined after a season or two to make an educated comparison .


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Kelder said:


> AND - if the concern is so great for what dogs can and cannot handle , why not require a dog MUST go thru JH and SH before being eligible to run a Master ? I do not agree with that solution BTW......


 I wouldn't like that much.

I would like it if they made it so that it was at least worth it, to run Senior first. 
As it stands right now, you have to pass 5 Senior tests to get one pass closer to a MH.

Passing 4 Seasoned tests, gets you 3 Finished passes knocked off of an HRCH.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe the folks who've run it, got the MN Title are satisfied now and will drop out and pursue other venues? Always a possibility that after a few years you'll see a big drop in entries. Happens at HT's. Sort of a cycle. One year a big pile of JH dogs, year or two later a big jump in MH dogs then, all the bottom drops out for a year or two.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

TroyFeeken said:


> Limit the number of dogs that a pro can bring and run to the MN. That'll immediately drop the entry numbers. Hopefully bringing the amateur back into the game more. If their pro qualifies their dog under the current rules, then the pro has to decide what dogs to take and force the owners to handle their own dog.


BINGO, about time we had a good idea. BTW from my perspective the dog that became a MH as a 2 year old is one hell of a dog and should not be penalized. But after running 12 events and then a MN in a year should look stupid for sure.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

How on Earth, does limiting the number of dogs that a Pro can enter, bring the Amateur "back into" the game more?

Seriously????!!!!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

An Amateur, is limited far more by a week long event, than they will ever be by the number of dogs being run by Pro Handlers.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> How on Earth, does limiting the number of dogs that a Pro can enter, bring the Amateur "back into" the game more?
> 
> Seriously????!!!!





copterdoc said:


> An Amateur, is limited far more by a week long event, than they will ever be by the number of dogs being run by Pro Handlers.


I agree. If the point is to limit the number of dogs in the MN, limiting the number of dogs a pro can run will probably do that. It will not increase the number of amateurs running--it will only make it more expensive for the clients of the pros since the expenses will be spread over fewer dogs.


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

Wasn't it in 2010 that the MN decided to offer the MNH? That seems to be a big incentive to get people from all over the country to make the trip more often. The people with time and money to do so - or have a pro run the dog (still money).

When I think of it this way, I begin to lose some respect of the MN Board to not have the foresight to see that this will raise the entry numbers! And gee, that might become a 'problem'?

Debbie


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

knash3 said:


> This is defined as a capacity problem, so needs a capacity solution. Not higher standards (scores or # passes), not judges choosing a winner each week. Having multiple National tests at multiple locations increases the capacity, eases travel and cost burdens, increases participant capacity. When the grocery store lines get long, they open more check-out lines. They don't send home the customers who aren't spending more than $X or have fewer than #Y items. Capacity...


BINGO well stated.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Exactly. 

If they wanted to put the title one it, perhaps if a dog passed once, the title would have been granted. And that could have ended the incentive for many to return year after year. 

But, no it takes 3 passes and the you get a new title for each pass after that. So there is always a carrot held out there to go back. Thus the numbers will always increase.


----------



## Gary Southall (Jan 17, 2012)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If they wanted to put the title one it, perhaps if a dog passed once, the title would have been granted. And that could have ended the incentive for many to return year after year.
> 
> But, no it takes 3 passes and the you get a new title for each pass after that. So there is always a carrot held out there to go back. Thus the numbers will always increase.


I agree totally with your remark. A dog that passes such a hard test should get the title MNH the first pass and that would relieve a lot of preasure on having to keep going and going. If you do want to keep going then get the numerical designation.It might go like this;MNH,MNH2,MNH3, MNH HOF. No need to get a MNH8


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

bubba said:


> just press the easy button.
> 
> Mnrc=owner/handler
> 
> ...



great idea!


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

It always amazes me that any time MN is mentioned the same RTF MN haters start all their BS and the FT'rs jump in without a clue. If you think people run the MN just for a plate or a title you don't have a clue. If you think there are clubs and MN volunteers out there willing to host qualifiers every year or multiple MNHT's, you don't have a clue. No, I don't have the solution but I do understand the problems.

It might be just like college football...as popularity grew the stadiums had to get bigger.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

SamLab1 said:


> It always amazes me that any time MN is mentioned the same RTF MN haters start all their BS and the FT'rs jump in without a clue. If you think people run the MN just for a plate or a title you don't have a clue. If you think there are clubs and MN volunteers out there willing to host qualifiers every year or multiple MNHT's, you don't have a clue. No, I don't have the solution but I do understand the problems.
> 
> It might be just like college football...as popularity grew the stadiums had to get bigger.



So clue me in: will this proposal fix any of the problems or just make it more expensive to run the for folks who do not already have a MH on their dog?


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Instead of assuming that a young dog can't hold up for the entire week, try looking somewhere else. I believe that the dogs that scrape by every weekend with an average of 5 or 6 in marking, are most likely not going last the full week of the MN. If marking is of primary importance, then why is an average of 5 "good enough to pass"?


----------



## Pat Puwal (Dec 22, 2004)

I attended a Master National meeting as a club rep years ago and they were discussing how to cut down the number of entries (I think it was about 300 that year). There have been dozens and dozens of proposals suggested over the years. Most of them don't pass or they do pass and they don't work. Really don't see that this particular proposal is going to change the numbers significantly. It is what it is I guess.


----------



## Trykon (Oct 22, 2007)

Here's the problem guys. Lets say you and I run the same 6 challenging master test and we both pass all 6. Your dog is already a MH and mine recieved his on the 6th pass. What makes your dog anymore deserving than mine?....


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Trykon said:


> Here's the problem guys. Lets say you and I run the same 6 challenging master test and we both pass all 6. Your dog is already a MH and mine recieved his on the 6th pass. What makes your dog anymore deserving than mine?....


This isn't a Monty Python movie....


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Codatango said:


> Wasn't it in 2010 that the MN decided to offer the MNH? That seems to be a big incentive to get people from all over the country to make the trip more often. The people with time and money to do so - or have a pro run the dog (still money).
> 
> When I think of it this way, I begin to lose some respect of the MN Board to not have the foresight to see that this will raise the entry numbers! And gee, that might become a 'problem'?
> 
> Debbie


Doesn't that just limit it to Retired and rich amateurs. I have a dog that has passed the last Master Nationals and this year I will be gong for my third however I have had a pro run him each time. I run him in almost all of his weekend tests and in Qs as well. However it takes 2 weeks to do a Master National at least. I am in my 30's and have 2 young kids and only 3 weeks vacation. I am in NC and no way could I do Kansas or CA. From a time or a money perspective figuring it would cost 1000-1500 to do these and a Pro is only a few hundred. If you limited it The Pros around here might not even do it. So if this rule was already in effect I would have to wait 3 years to run my dog to even attempt for a 3 pass. 

If that is the cases because I already have two passes I will keep trying for the 3 and a MNH title but this would be my last. Going forward I would just focus on FTs because the Master National Game would be too much trouble.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Spent the weekend at a dog event that included 2 master national board members. These ideas of multiple events is just so much wind in the willows. The real answer is to reduce the number of dogs a Pro can run to 6-8. There will a hugh cry of unfair but you try managing the Master National. The proposed change , I believe will again add more weight to the Master Hunter Title . The Master National is it's own organization and we should not let it clutter our thinkiung re how to make the Master Hunter program better.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

In addition to the number of entries a huge growth of MNH dogs is a issue too isn't it? So the last 2 MN had 200-250 dogs pass, I bet a good number where the same dogs. In Kansas and after you might start seeing 100 new dogs a year become MNH. That will water down the value of the title some won't it. the same can be said of MH too. Rather then making it more frustrating (limit Pro Dogs) or More expensive (more passes) why not raise the standard to get their. Either by doing 5 out of 7 or like some others have suggested add some challenging elements to tests. Require a Quad, poison bird blind, remote sit....ect...


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

wojo said:


> Spent the weekend at a dog event that included 2 master national board members. These ideas of multiple events is just so much wind in the willows. *The real answer is to reduce the number of dogs a Pro can run to 6-8. *There will a hugh cry of unfair but you try managing the Master National. The proposed change , I believe will again add more weight to the Master Hunter Title . The Master National is it's own organization and we should not let it clutter our thinkiung re how to make the Master Hunter program better.



This may be here nor there but doesn't the SRS limit pro entries? And also have events where the pro can only advance a few dogs not his whole string? Seems they limit by doing just what you mentioned...


----------



## Terry A (Jul 1, 2003)

Not a fan of this one


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

The pros are here, and they are going to stay. The main reason is because THEY VOTE! They will always vote in their best interest.

Put yourself in the Pro's shoes: You have 7 dogs qualified to enter the Master National by springtime, and 7 more dogs that need one or two more passes. How would you like to tell the owners, "Even if your dog qualifies ,you CHOOSE not to take their dog to the Master National"? "Would you like me to qualify them anyway, or would you like to take your dog home now?"


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

What makes this an unpopular resolution?

"In order for a weekend Master pass to count toward qualifying to go to the Master National, the marking score must average at least a 7."


----------

