# Letter of suggestions concerning Limited Entries.



## Lyle Steinman (Aug 10, 2003)

A letter concerning our suggestions for Limited Entries is posted on my Facebook page at Castile Creek Kennels. This letter was sent to Mr. Bill Teague. 

The letter was written by Jack Morris, Ray Shanks, Doug Shade and myself. 

Thank you for your time. 

Lyle


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Lyle Steinman said:


> A letter concerning our suggestions for Limited Entries is posted on my Facebook page at Castile Creek Kennels. This letter was sent to Mr. Bill Teague.
> 
> The letter was written by Jack Morris, Ray Shanks, Doug Shade and myself.
> 
> ...


I am not on Facebook and would like to read it. Since you authored the letter, can you copy and paste it here?


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Excellent suggestions. I went to your personal fb before I realized it was on your kennel fb page.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I think the mileage limitations will help a lot. Our club didn't even have a spring test this year because we could not get a date that worked for us because of some tests that are right at 200 miles and hardly anyone that enters those don't enter ours anyway. Our club is also limited because the land we lease is also farmed and we only have a short window to avoid having problems with crop planting in the spring. No mileage will free us up to have the test at the best time. I know this is only our issue but it will also help with entries I believe.


----------



## Elaine Mitchell (Jun 4, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> I am not on Facebook and would like to read it. Since you authored the letter, can you copy and paste it here?


You don't have to have a FB account to view it. Here is a link: 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Castile-Creek-Kennels/301931297749

This is the letter we sent.

RE: Suggestions for the limited entries problem.

1) Reduce the miles for Non-Compete clause. Let test compete with each other for entries. That has been very effective for field trials.

2) 75 Dog limit minimum (from 60) allowing a Club to also limit Seniors & Juniors. This will protect them from having spilt to Senior & Juniors. 

3) Allow clubs to also limit the Seniors & Juniors, this will allow a club to use higher limits on Master stakes. 

4) Allow a Club to host a 3 rd event each year. Currently clubs can offer a Junior and Senior event only. Allow this 3 d event to be a Master only or a combination of Master and/or Junior & Seniors.

5) Require Entry Express to post date & time that a test will open up (at least two weeks prior to the closing date. (No MIDNIGHT openings). Suggest all events limited or not, have a standardized opening time of 7:00 PM in the time zone the event is being held. Also ask that openings be no more than 30 days in advance. 

6) Allow clubs that have opened and filled up to add additional test or flights before the closing. 

7) Ask Entry Express to continue accepting entries after an event is filled for the purpose of creating a secondary list. This list will be used to auto-fill any scratches that may occur and will become the first entries accepted should a club decide to add another flight. 

8) Ask Club and Entry Express to move closing time to Noon, 1 PM or 2 PM. (To make sure Entry Express is open to make scratches so other people can enter).

9) Ask Club to include on application the past three years numbers. (ie: 2010: Masters (197); Seniors (49); and Juniors (35); 2011: Masters (157); Seniors (45); and Juniors (36). 2012: Masters (187); Seniors (35); and Juniors (39).

10) Require the club provide a short description of the land and water they have available for their event. This may include acreage and type and number of ponds available. If club is asking for a limited entry on their application, define limitations. i.e: available acreage, lack of suitable water, lack of help, etc. 

11) Any Doubleheader Master’s may NOT start on the same day.

12) Clubs that choose to limit entries. The mileage compete will be taken away. Also required to pay the AKC per dog rate as follows. 60 Dog Limit will be $ 18.00 Per dog. 120 Dog Limit $ 9.00 Per dog. 180 Dog limit will $ 6.00 Per Dog. 240 Dog limit $ 4.50 Per Dog. No limit (as it is now) $ 3.50.

Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Steinman
Jack Morris
Ray Shanks
Doug Shade
Proud members of The Professional Retriever Training Association


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

Some good suggestions, some questionable ones. The fee schedule is ridiculous! You want to punish clubs that for one reason of another have to limit entries. $18 per dog times 60 dogs.... $1080 fee to the AKC because we have to limit our test? Sorry that is idiotic! If we had an extra $1000 maybe each club could lease more land, hire more help etc. 

Perhaps a more logical solution resides with the Pros. Limit the amount of dogs you can enter per test. Or we can alter the fee schedule as an example: the first six dogs on your truck entered pay the normal entry fee, after that tack on an additional $50 per dog for the next 6, then anything over 12 dogs entered is an additional $100. I guess is what I am trying to say is this, why punish the clubs and volunteers so a big name pro can make his living? We are the ones volunteering so you can make a living, I don't have a problem with that at all. Everyone needs to eat, and if you can make a living in the outdoors out of an office doing what you love great. But damn kill the club that wants to hold a test, get a freaking clue.... you are biting the hand that feeds and it is eventually going to hurt.

EDIT***
I am not seriously proposing the fee schedule above used it mainly as an illustration. Like I said a lot of the ideas aren't bad, I hope you can tell how I feel about the fees though.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Eric Fryer said:


> Some good suggestions, some questionable ones. The fee schedule is ridiculous! You want to punish clubs that for one reason of another have to limit entries. $18 per dog times 60 dogs.... $1080 fee to the AKC because we have to limit our test? Sorry that is idiotic! If we had an extra $1000 maybe each club could lease more land, hire more help etc.
> 
> Perhaps a more logical solution resides with the Pros. Limit the amount of dogs you can enter per test. _Or we can alter the fee schedule as an example: the first six dogs on your truck entered pay the normal entry fee, after that tack on an additional $50 per dog for the next 6, then anything over 12 dogs entered is an additional $100. _ I guess is what I am trying to say is this, why punish the clubs and volunteers so a big name pro can make his living? We are the ones volunteering so you can make a living, I don't have a problem with that at all. Everyone needs to eat, and if you can make a living in the outdoors out of an office doing what you love great. But damn kill the club that wants to hold a test, get a freaking clue.... you are biting the hand that feeds and it is eventually going to hurt.


I agree, don't punish the club for being successful. I have a similar problem with your suggestion regarding pros, you act as if it only hurts the pro. The reality in most cases is that the pro is the surrogate handler for many owners, who for one reason or another can't attend that hunt test. Your proposal would put each pro in a very awkward position of having to choose which owner to piss off each weekend. I know I would be very upset if my dog was on a pro truck for a winter circuit, and my dog had to sit on the truck all weekend while my pro ran other dogs.


----------



## fishin444 (Apr 23, 2012)

The last senior test I ran had 24 entries and 4 of those were scratched. The last junior had 22. Last year those same two tests had over double that in them. Why would you want to limit the amount of entries in those events? Seems to me that you are going to take away any incentive for a beginning trainer like me to enter a hunt test, or get any experience running in one. Understand we are not all pros, and have to start somewhere. I know I'm not ready to run either of my dogs in a master level event. What I'm seeing is less entries in these level tests means that people like myself are giving up on the sport, or waiting for their dog and themselves to be trained well enough to enter a master. Where did you start?


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

John.... I edited my post. I honestly feel the way you do sorry for the confusion


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

I don't understand the logic in the fee schedules. Some clubs have limited land and can only put on a smaller test. In turn what would happen is you would end up with less tests! I know our club lost land after our last double master and now we can not offer it until we find more available land. 

The HT Pro's will suffer if more clubs decide opt out of the Master National Club. If our club wanted to really limit our numbers we would do just that, drop out of the Master National Club.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> I don't understand the logic in the fee schedules. Some clubs have limited land and can only put on a smaller test. In turn what would happen is you would end up with less tests! *I know our club lost land after our last double master *and now we can not offer it until we find more available land.
> 
> The HT Pro's will suffer if more clubs decide opt out of the Master National Club. If our club wanted to really limit our numbers we would do just that, drop out of the Master National Club.


Mike, what did you lose? Sorry to hear that.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Kit's land. Enough was enough after last year unfortunately.


----------



## Dave Mirek (Jan 23, 2007)

I apologize for my comments here in advance if I don't share your same position but just want to share some helpful thoughts that are solely my personal thoughts. I feel that the biggest issue is that there are so many dogs running Master tests that are already titled and either just running because they have nothing else to do or they are running to qualify for the Nationals (I personally don't see any value in a dog that has passed 6 MH tests over one that has passed 50). This is agravating to me (my personal thought) as these dogs are quickly taking the spots that are meant for individuals trying to achieve that goal of MH and you already have. I don't mean to take away from anyone and their reason for running but I am suggesting that perhaps the field limit the number of entries for dogs that have already titled or have already met their national qualifying requirement. My opinion is that there needs to be a way to keep a path into this event for why HT's were originally created. Again these are my sole thoughts and am only offering ideas and not condemning the thoughts of others. Does anyone have any information on whether we are gaining both dog owners and handlers at the MH level or is it simply the same people running?


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Eric Fryer said:


> Some good suggestions, some questionable ones. The fee schedule is ridiculous! You want to punish clubs that for one reason of another have to limit entries. $18 per dog times 60 dogs.... $1080 fee to the AKC because we have to limit our test? Sorry that is idiotic! If we had an extra $1000 maybe each club could lease more land, hire more help etc.
> .


I know for a fact that there are plenty of clubs out there that have the exra help and the extra grounds but still choose to limit ( 60 ) there MH stake.......I'm in full agreement to this proposal #12, but if I'm reading #10 correctly if a club shows that they truly do have limited grounds,help,water etc..then I'm in favor that the extra fees from proposal #12 be waved...


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

In order to have the proposed additional and or larger events, it would require each club to have more help to manage each event. Most clubs currently struggle to manage events at the current size. Although we are supposed to be an amateur sport, ARC's last event had 85 of 140 running dogs come off pro's trucks. We were very fortunate that several of those pros helped us manage our event. However, this is often not the case, and we all must remember that we must all do our part to make these events successful. Otherwise, there will be no events to run. 

I know for a fact in Atlanta we limit our events because of limited help not land.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Simple solution to get around proposals 10&12 is to not be a member of the Master National. The club/clubs near my area that are not member clubs have around 30-50 master dogs.


----------



## Pat Puwal (Dec 22, 2004)

There are a lot of good suggestions and thank you, gentlemen, for putting them out there and taking some action to help alleviate the situation. Whatever is decided, you were pro-active!


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> Simple solution to get around proposals 10&12 is to not be a member of the Master National. The club/clubs near my area that are not member clubs have around 30-50 master dogs.


no agrement there..... and each and every club surly has the right to choose one way or another.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Kyle Bertram said:


> I know for a fact in Atlanta we limit our events because of limited help not land.


so why not hire help ???


there are plently of organizations out there from Boy Scouts to ROTC ( in some high schools ), high school sporting teams and so on, but more importantly don't ask them to put in a 10 hr day break it up into 4 hr shifts.


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

With what money??? Have you ever put on one of these events? We do hire bird boys. But there are a ton of other things to do to make an event run smoothly. 



skyy said:


> so why not hire help ???
> 
> 
> there are plently of organizations out there from Boy Scouts to ROTC ( in some high schools ), high school sporting teams and so on, but more importantly don't ask them to put in a 10 hr day break it up into 4 hr shifts.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Around here we had a non-MN club fill up Master within an hour of opening. I do think there are good valid suggestions in your letter Lyle et al, and thank you for putting it in writing. You guys have some great suggestions other than tacking on punitive fees to a club that has to limit master entries. NOT a good idea IMO because it will unfairly penalize clubs, that rarely make much of a profit on these tests. Make it so a club will lose money on a master test and guess what? It'll stop having them. 

I agree strongly that there's a desperate need for some kind of "also eligible" entry so scratches are filled. Our club had a 60 dog Master last weekend that filled within 10 minutes of opening. And guess what? Even though people who wanted to run the test scoured EE hourly up til the close date, we had 10 scratches, and 2 more day-of no shows--total of 12 scratches, loss of nearly $1,000 to the club. If EE would develop an also eligible list and take entries, it would make them extra fees, and would take the "cronyism" factor out of who gets in and who doesn't that everyone's heard rumors about. Even better, it would avoid the shameful situation of a test, like ours, that fills in 10 minutes and yet has 20 percent scratches.

One thing clubs can do right now is set their own refund policy--clubs are allowed to decide what their refund policy will be, and allowed to keep a certain amount back when refunding for administrative expenses, (for example you still have to pay the AKC fee of $3.50 for scratches if they're after the entry deadline). And IMO there should be NO refunds for scratches after the test starts, unless for extraordinary circumstances that could be left to HT committee to decide; I believe AKC rules say refunds only required for scratched before test starts with a note from vet. Sock it to those people that leave their entries in until after it's too late to fill them. 

With an also eligible list (that could be printed in the catalog) local handlers could take their chances and show up and be able to run for scratches which most people would do before the test date if they knew they'd lose their entry fee. Horse racing does this; if you've ever seen race catalogs they often print the first several also eligibles. 

The other suggestion that was whole heartedly endorsed from an informal poll last wkd. at our test is one that is a policy with agility trials that are allowed to limit entries. A club needs to be able to hold a certain number of spots open for its own members. We had a few members who did not get in our master that filled 10 minutes after opening, among them some of our best workers. Fortunately they were able to get in, but how likely are club workers to show up and work their butts off all weekend if they cannot get in? How likely are they going to help out at their neighboring clubs if they cannot get in those tests? What is happening now is hurting the very ones who volunteer their time and weekends to make the tests possible.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Kyle Bertram said:


> With what money??? Have you ever put on one of these events? We do hire bird boys. But there are a ton of other things to do to make an event run smoothly.


Thank you to Lyle , Ray and the others who composed the proposal. FWIW, I have not been unable to enter a Master test this year that I wanted to enter because it was already full when I logged on. i have been in about 6 so far with 2-4 dogs each time.
On the subject of bird throwers, the best I have ever been around were the inmates at the Cattle Ranch in Alabama. Some of the worst have been church groups. ROTC cadets can be good or not so good, just depending. But on the subject of hiring them, go ahead and get good dependable, competent throwers and pay what it takes to get them and to get them to stay till the end. Charge me $100 for entry of you have to, because the cost of entry is the least cost in running a test or trial. If I am going to have a couple tanks of fuel, 2 nights hotel, meals on the road and maybe a missed day of work, the last thing I want is poor throws when I get to the line. An extra $10 per dog on a typical weekend event gets you an extra $2000 for dependable help.
The next comment posted here will probably be that the entry fees are already high enough and I remember the days of HT entries of $30. $40. $50, but things change. This is not an inexpensive sport or past time to be involved with and the reality is that some people just can't afford it, just like some can't afford to be golfers. It is called life. Sorry for my bad attitude. 
I was at one event this spring where it began to rain and the bird techs just left with 30 or more dogs to run on Sunday afternoon. I think they were a church teen group. At another, we had bird techs from a correctional institute and one of them was messing up the trows " just to piss off the judge". He was replaced just prior to my run. At the first instance, the handlers left to finish the test rotated through the stations and throw for each other.
And yes, I have helped to put on many events.
MP


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Back to the original topic, I think a lot of the grumbling from "non pros" could be avoided if a club were allowed to send in fully completed and paid for entries with their final judge list and other info. needed for the "opening" that are reserved for confirmed workers and club members, officers that actually work, and are needed for the admin. duties that are necessary to run an event. These should be non refundable under any circumstances. 
Couple this policy with EE having a waiting list and many of the entry issues will go away. As always and human nature, there will be those that will try to skirt the spirit of the law, but that is unavoidable.
JMHO
MP


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

shouldn't there be away to penalize people that habitually scratch entry's causing clubs to lose money and others from not being able to run. the one thing I liked was the owners signing their own dogs up


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Some very good ideas but quite a few not so good ideas coming from the pros. A couple ideas here. Limit the number of dogs a pro can run like HRC. Charge the pros more if they're stepping off the truck with certain numbers of dogs. Also require the pros running a certain number of dogs to facilitate a bird boy or two if they have in excess a certain number of dogs. Have the pros be required to host judging seminars and assist in mentoring new judges. Judges are becoming an extremely difficult thing to find. With the new excessive rules to become a judge, the number of qualified judges is getting smaller. Also opening entries up to owner/handlers prior to pros would suffice in bringing the game back to amateurs. 

Charging the the clubs extra from AKC is just silly. AKC doesn't provide much in the way of assistance to the clubs, maybe they should start giving money back to clubs that host tests without limited entries.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

The suggestion that dbl headers not be able to start on the same day is a return to previous policy. Don't know why AKC changed it, but it makes sense to stage out the events to avoid the inevitable cluster w/ 2 events starting at once.
$$ penalties for clubs that limit entries? Sorry, but that's a stupid idea that will only -as noted above - piss off folks. Besides, the penalty would just be tacked on to the entry fee so who winds up getting penalized? 
The wait list proposal has already been made to the RHTAC and should be easy to implement.
The mileage limit should not be a problem as any club can waive objection. 
The other ideas are all, IMO, sound, but you left off the the suggestion that clubs be allowed to limit the number of dogs any single individual can handle. HTs were not intended to be shows put on by club members for the financial benefit of pros, or for those not able or willing to run their own dogs. And I say that with all due respect to the individuals submitting the letter. All good guys. But leave some run for the amateurs. 
The real solution is to add events. Perhaps the HT pros could take a cue from the PRTA and start a regional HTPRTA in each time zone? 

And last - NETN closed with only 27 master dogs and LRCP still has 20 open slots. Perhaps the "problem" is just one of convenient location? Folks might have to expand their horizons a bit and run in some different locations.

Bob Swift


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> The suggestion that dbl headers not be able to start on the same day is a return to previous policy. Don't know why AKC changed it, but it makes sense to stage out the events to avoid the inevitable cluster w/ 2 events starting at once.
> $$ penalties for clubs that limit entries? Sorry, but that's a stupid idea that will only -as noted above - piss off folks. Besides, the penalty would just be tacked on to the entry fee so who winds up getting penalized?
> The wait list proposal has already been made to the RHTAC and should be easy to implement.
> The mileage limit should not be a problem as any club can waive objection.
> ...


In the south the FT pros have really stepped up and *added* field trials to help out. It would be great to see that done in AKC Hunting Tests.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

For the published letter to BT I applaud the action as it takes courage to be a leader! Your letter exposes each of you and somewhat your clients to a suggested course of action. While I personally dont agree with each suggestion the group is commended on seeking solutions!

Our hunt test venue needs our professional trainers such as these men and others like them. Our dogs are better trained, our handlers are better prepared and our sport has grown. For the past several years the master venue has averaged about 22,500 entries and appears to have leveled off. I am just curious if limited entries is affecting the overall entry for the year and i would hope calm leaders will look back before we legislate forward. Also i am guessing these 4 trainers likely do 10% of our master entry each year so they are out there among us 

So from our end, we train our own ht dogs and most days they are as average as we are! We chair, organize, marshal, judge , shoot/throw , pick up the trash, haul trailers, catch birds and the list goes on ! Any creditability we share comes from the sweat equity in OUR sport. 

We have been forunate enough to travel with the dogs, we've seen the great grounds and those just scrapping by. An adjustment of limited entries was needed ! These men put forth some ideas and not all of them will fly but they tried. 
So consider what JFK said " Ask not what the retriever sport can do for you but what you can do for the Retriever sport" maybe he didnt say that but it was something close. 

Good going guys - set the way! 
Dave Kress


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Limit the dogs per handler . Still the 75 dogs is insane 60 dogs is barely doable per stake, especailly in the fall (limited day-light), it limits the quality of test judges can put on; when they are so concerned with pushing dogs through. Quantity vs. quality lowers the standard of what an MH actually this is not McDonalds .

Peanut.Clause. I love Mcdonalds, the food is cheap fast, and addicting; but it's not a rib-eyes steak. Mcnuggets RULE


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

I think Julie had a very good idea to let people entry to fill the scratches. I work my butt off at our last ht unable to run my own dog, mean while thinking I wish I had one of the spots that was a scratch.

I don't understand the price increase for clubs that limit the numbers. This cost would have to but pass on to entries. 

I think one thing that is not addressed in this thread is how to get more judges. (I would like to know the numbers of judges in relationship to test as Ted did for ft)

Our club doesn't have a problem finding grounds, Paid bird boys. We do have a problem finding people to run a stake, marshalls, shot live flyers.

I think the lack of new amateur able to run there dogs will only this problem worse. There is nothing to adress these problem.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

For # 30 and to address your question about 
Judges. 
My first thought is there are adequate numbers of judges however likely there has been no study on the numbers. An average ht would need about 10 judges and if there are 5 events around the nation thats 50 judges and if this goes on 40 weeks that is 2000 judges if all judged one time. 

Ht are hard to judge and difficult to be a judge. 
Take a test, then a seminar then enter and be successful twice , next apprentice and finally judge then repeat. My opinion is the consistency in judging is rising. Then with all that there are several rules and standards to apply
No wonder the sport is growing just due to the structure. 

Now for acquiring judges my solution for our club is simple. Our tests are fairly early in the spring so we get folks from the North. Some are down here already, others ready for a weekend where the grass is growing. Its really too early for them to be out training in earnest. Our cold is laughable at times, this spring i was bundled up with jacket,gloves and a hat and one of the guys from up yonder had shorts on. He was shocked and laughed at me. 

Our sport is discretionary income so lets enjoy it, make it fun and recall why we are doing this. It may have started out as something to do between hunting seasons but it is different today. Families are running around, kids playing, junior handlers, Nationals to attend and dog friends spread across the Nation. 
Someone said " enjoy the ride"
Dk


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Want to enter a master test when yours is full come to UT. HT and DQ next weekend 38 Qual dogs 37 Master dogs entries closed last Monday. Another HT DQ the following weekend closes today and the entries as of now stand at 19 qual dogs and 17 Masters. Well on second thought don't come to UT I like it the way it is.
Lots of complaints about Masters filling up quick and occasionally we hear that FT need new blood. Well my response to that is (and I'm sure some or a lot will think Im out in left field) is do away with the Master National. All it does is keep people chasing Master passes and keeps them from trying to jump to the next level and try the qual. I couldn't imagine going and running the MN with 800 or 900 dogs qualified, no thanks! Again on second thought I like things as is just fine, plenty of qual dogs and plenty of Master dogs.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Got it #32 and you have a good point. 

Consider though- the ht dogs are better, handlers better and the training better 
The program has good dogs! Should you desire to breed your dog will you go to an MH with 6 passes or say a dog with 50 passes and MNH x5. My belief says its the consistency of achievement however the animal with just 6 passes may be just as good but since the dog may only be known to a small circle that bloodline wont be shared as much. 

We do enjoy the events and we do campaign the dogs. Hustle , gone now 3 years had like 94 AkC passes and 20+ Ckc passes at the Master level plus an MNHx5 and an NMH x4. Now i am not saying he was one bit better than a dog with 6 passes however you do know Hustle was consistent. 
Is that not one of the attributes we look for? 
Just saying 

In Canada the master tests always have about 20 dogs and they are fun and relaxed. Your events with lower numbers would be fun and I envy that to a degree. 
Although it is nice also when 500 dogs show up and its a zoo and you better have your act together with a nice crew to help. Consider coming to Alabama one spring and join in the crazy. Its not like that film - Deliverance at all. 
Dk


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Stunning letter.

My first reaction was to withdraw my offer to help with our test next month. 

We're a small club and just joined the master national. We will struggle to handle 60 master dogs already entered. I don't run AKC/HTs and I believe we have only 4 member dogs running master. 

And in addition to my working two 12 hour days, we should pay a $1000 fine for not accommodating more entries?


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Keith Stroyan said:


> Stunning letter.
> 
> My first reaction was to withdraw my offer to help with our test next month.
> 
> ...


My sentiments exactly. If a proposal that idiotic even makes it out to the club delegates for a vote, my outlook on this whole thing will be greatly tarnished. 

I've got better ways to spend vacation days than being on test grounds from Friday through Sunday.


----------



## Rig (Mar 1, 2005)

Thank you Lyle and your group for much needed dialog. Your letter deserves a point by point look. Here are some comments:

# 1. (Reduce non-compete mileage). Good. More competition between events addresses a LOT of issues. On the field trial side this is contingent on last year's entry size of the adjacent event and to prevent starving a struggling event into non existence maybe something similar should apply to reducing hunt test non-compete mileage.

# 2. (75 limit instead of 60.) Not feasible especially when days are shorter. If 75 is an allowable limit it needs to be club option. Let the guys who know the local conditions make this call.

#3. (Junior & Senior limits.) Good idea as long as it is club option.

#4. (Allow 3rd event a year, Master-only or combo Master and one Jr or sr.) Excellent idea. If a club wants to do the work to hold an extra event why on earth tell them they can't.

# 5. (Required posting of opening date/time, which shall be not more than 30 days [before something--event or closing??] or less than 14 days before closing.) Requiring advance posting of opening date/time is a good idea ONLY if Additional Suggestion A, below, is also used. Otherwise this requirement destroys a club's ability to give a heads up to club member workers so they can be sure to get their dog in the test. If they are going to be working all weekend that is only fair and common sense for the survival of events. There is no good reason for a "not earlier than" limit on opening. 

# 6. (Allow more flights be added after filling.) Already allowed, I think. We have had one club do this here this year under the existing rules.

# 7. (Also-eligible list with auto-filling of scratches.) Excellent idea and already proposed. EE will have to make software changes to implement it but that's not a reason not to make this critically needed change. 

# 8. (Daylight hours closing time.) Good idea IF Suggestion # 7 is used, otherwise don't bother. 

# 9. (Require clubs to report prior years entry numbers.) What is the reason for this? It is more paperwork for clubs, and old numbers are not very useful to predict where entries will be high in a later year because there are many factors that change this from year to year. What is the AKC going to do with this report? It appears to be one of the items that reflects the authors' distrust of the event-hosting clubs and as such it carries the odor of "biting the hand that feeds you." 

# 10. (Require each club to justify limiting entries by "proving its case" to the AKC,) Dump this one pronto. It's arrogantly offensive--a repulsive example of "biting the hand that feeds you." I mean, really, guys; it should have gone on the cutting room floor when you edited the letter.

# 11. (Double header Masters may not start on the same day.) Delete this one. Whether to do it should be up to the people putting on the test. More event days translates into more grounds fees, bird boy costs, motel costs, meal costs, and on and on, etc. Why make it harder to put on events when what you want is more events?

# 12. (Make clubs pay AKC a sliding scale of higher fees the more they limit entries.) Whoa, guys. REALLY offensive. Talk about attacking the clubs who are putting on the hunt tests that help you make a living. "Cooler heads" should have edited this one before you hit "send." It is not in your interest to offend the hunt test community that you make your living off of.

======================

Additional Suggestions from the discussion that should be added to the letter, IMO.

A. Clubs have option to reserve a set number or percentage of slots for the event workers. Workers need to be able to enter or you can't attract workers to make the event go. Fundamental. Such reservation to be published in the premium list and released if not taken by 3 days before closing. 

B. PRTA shall put on 4 hunt tests (1 per time zone) per year, as the PRTA field trial pro's are doing now. 

C. Clubs' discretionary refund policy (for scratches other than death, sick or injured, or in season) can deny refunds for any stake that has filled, while allowing them elsewhere.

Rig


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

PRTA shall put on 4 hunt tests (1 per time zone) per year, as the PRTA field trial pro's are doing now. 

This might be difficult since the PRTA is mostly FT pros. It appears there are a few HT pros on their member list on website. 
Any reason more HT pros aren't members?


----------



## Patti Benton (Jan 6, 2003)

Julie & Rig
I totally agree on reserving spots for club members. I want to go one further on that item. What is your reserve 20 spots and you have a club member that is a Pro and the Pro takes all the reserved spots? What if the Pro can only enter their personal dogs? I just want it to be fair. 

I do like many of the suggestions.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Patti Benton said:


> Julie & Rig
> I totally agree on reserving spots for club members. I want to go one further on that item. What is your reserve 20 spots and you have a club member that is a Pro and the Pro takes all the reserved spots? What if the Pro can only enter their personal dogs? I just want it to be fair.
> 
> I do like many of the suggestions.


This one is easy. Ya just tie um up and drive a railroad spike into their forehead- slowly.

Biting the hand that feeds ain't a good idea regards

Bubba


----------



## Vinnie Carr (Aug 19, 2009)

Patti Benton said:


> Julie & Rig
> I totally agree on reserving spots for club members. I want to go one further on that item. What is your reserve 20 spots and you have a club member that is a Pro and the Pro takes all the reserved spots? What if the Pro can only enter their personal dogs? I just want it to be fair.
> 
> I do like many of the suggestions.


Patti,
I too like the suggestion of reserving spots for the club members who are hosting the test. It would be up to the club to police it though to prevent abuse by the few that would try to take advantage of it.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Darrin,
Sure, a 50/50 is nice for a little extra cash, however in HT's, the amateur entry is getting smaller every event we have so the number of people willing to drop $10 or $20 is getting smaller, thus a smaller payout at the end. That then comes in line with the line further below of yours where you identify paying bird boys and have the membership sell stuff. I'm not sure where you're coming from and if your club pays at least minimum wage, but we pay a just a bit more and there's no way a club would break even on that route. Selling merchandise and refreshments is more employees and very very low margin considering the number of people that actually purchase things. I've lined up merchandise in the past for our club and for the small volume that is purchased, the margins are very small, somewheres around a few bucks for a t-shirt. You'd have to sell a lot of t-shirts to pay for a bird boy each hour.

The AKC fees suggestion is what is paid by the club at the end of the event. Unless the club turned those fee's around in the entry costs, it's just hurting the clubs. I'm having an extremely hard time how Lyle and his group were conscientiously able to keep a strait face when submitting that line in their proposal. There should be no reason for AKC to dictate additional fees or requirements of explanation on why a club can or cannot operate with more than one master flight. Perhaps the AKC would like to chip in to our land fund to provide more grounds.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Change is hard. 

Hunting tests have gone from a hobby to a business...

That's not easy for people. 

But, it is the future.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Both pro and amateur are glossing over one simple fact. The hunt test world is a symbiotic relationship. We need the pro entries to provide financing. I shudder to think where entry fees would be without them. Probably $150 or more. The pros need secretaries, chairs, marshals, shooters and bird boys in order to have a job. Neither group benefits by alienating the other.

I am in favor of limits for the following reason. The clubs know their capabilities. Whether land, manpower, judges or other circumstance. When assets are stretched the event can be poorly run. It is impossible for some clubs to acquire more land & others to recruit workers.

My suggestion to the pros. Bring a few clients and ask them to shoot, hold the clipboard, throw birds or any number of necessary jobs at a hunt test. For amateurs and clubs, don't set number of Master flights based on what is easy but the true limitations of the club.

No one benefits if clubs stop having tests.


----------



## splashdash (Aug 1, 2007)

Thank you Mark. Many of the proposals in this and previous threads seem far too one sided.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

As long as we are brainstorming.....

We make the master flight in the normal weekend tests be primarily for non-titled dogs and dogs where their handlers don't plan to try to qualify for the MN. Passes here would not count toward qualifying for MN. This would be accompanied by Junior and or Senior flights just as it is now. 

Then Master National Member Clubs would be required to hold at least one Master National Qualifying Event per year. The entry fee for this could be higher than an ordinary Master Test since the costs would not be subsidized by the Junior and Senior stakes. 

Master National Member Clubs could choose to hold an MNQ the same weekend as the regular test if they had the facilities and help to pull it off or they could hold the event as a separate event on another weekend. If they chose to hold it the same weekend there should still be a regular MH offered.

A dog would not have to have their title to run in the MNQ event and a pass at the MNQ for an untitled dog would count towards their MH title as well as for qualifying for MN.

Only passes at the MNQ events would count towards the 6 required for MN.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Why not require a pro to bring a bird boy for every 10 dogs he enters or runs??


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

It ain't about the bird boys- that is a solvable issue. The issue is about available grounds, it's about a very few folks that put in long hours for weeks in advance of the test getting all the necessary arrangements in line, it's about too much crap and not enough appreciation.
The volunteers that put these things on are about wore out and it's time to change something.
The unfortunate part of the limited entries is that it is arbitrary- just as likely to shut out a club member as anyone. Maybe the solution is to just allow the clubs to decline entries from those that show up to the party with nothing but an appetite?

Something has to give regards

Bubba


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

So you kind of contradict yourself there Bubba. Maybe it is not about bird boys but it is about help. If you ran a 60 dog master and all 60 were by Pro's that is 6 free bird throwers. With that much help and experience they could basically run the master by themselves. I would have to think that would relive some of the stress from the small group of club members putting these things on.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Maybe the solution is to just allow the clubs to decline entries from those that show up to the party with nothing but an appetite?


I like that one. Everyone who wants to run signs up on EE and the HTC gets together and decides who is deserving. Folks would start doing a lot more than holding the bags open for the guys doing the re-birds if their reputation for helping might affect whether they could run a particular test


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

dexdoolittle said:


> So you kind of contradict yourself there Bubba. Maybe it is not about bird boys but it is about help. If you ran a 60 dog master and all 60 were by Pro's that is 6 free bird throwers. With that much help and experience they could basically run the master by themselves. I would have to think that would relive some of the stress from the small group of club members putting these things on.


Are they going to order the birds? Are they going to arrange for equipment and haul it around to the various stakes? Are they going to order portapotties? Are they going to make the arrangements to bring in judges and make sure the judges are taken care of? Are they going to train the lackeys like me who don't know what to do but need to learn so that the club can keep going in years to come? Are they going to help balance the books when it is all over with? 

A lot of the work is administrative and falls on the shoulders of a few folks.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

No offense, but I have put on more than a few of these things, Hunt Test and Field trials. So, I understand what it takes. You and Bubba are complaing about things that are just part of the game. Does somebody hit the golf ball for you also?? No body wants to offer viable solutions or ideas to help with the pain. Everybody just wants to complain... NO differnet than the other thread about not enough judges.




mitty said:


> Are they going to order the birds? Are they going to arrange for equipment and haul it around to the various stakes? Are they going to order portapotties? Are they going to make the arrangements to bring in judges and make sure the judges are taken care of? Are they going to train the lackeys like me who don't know what to do but need to learn so that the club can keep going in years to come? Are they going to help balance the books when it is all over with?
> 
> A lot of the work is administrative and falls on the shoulders of a few folks.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

dexdoolittle said:


> No offense, but I have put on more than a few of these things, Hunt Test and Field trials. So, I understand what it takes. You and Bubba are complaing about things that are just part of the game. Does somebody hit the golf ball for you also?? No body wants to offer viable solutions or ideas to help with the pain. Everybody just wants to complain... NO differnet than the other thread about not enough judges.


I have not complained. I am pointing out that you can hire help, but you still need folks to run the show. Sorry, I have no idea what you have done or what constraints if any you have putting on events, we haven't met. But my club is very small and there are only so many bodies that can do all the running around that needs done. Even with lots of hired help, someone has to manage that help, and there are not many here. That is not a complaint. That is a fact.

Edit: apologies, I thought your handle was a handle.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

But that is just part of the game and it is your game. You got too much on the plate? go do something else. Somebody will step up and take over. They usually do. 



mitty said:


> I have not complained. I am pointing out that you can hire help, but you still need folks to run the show. I have no idea what you have done or what constraints if any you have putting on events as you provide no info about yourself. But my club is very small and there are only so many bodies that can do all the running around that needs done. Even with lots of hired help, someone has to manage that help, and there are not many here. That is not a complaint. That is a fact.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

Maybe its time to go back to the old system........ 6 passes with only 8 tries....no that's not fair to 300+ dogs that need 10 or more tries to qualify for MN.

How about an we split to a Pro/Am format ??? No, wait can't put on another test not enough help, ground

Simple solution to all clubs....I you want to Limit your entries then don't be a MN club.......plan and simple all you trouble are now gone....no more pro's with 10 or more dogs, plenty of opening for non-MH dogs, clubs members and so on......

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

In post #45, I put out this idea for discussion.....and I'm waiting to see if anyone else thinks it could help. It is not putting Am vs Pro, it is not complaining about not enough help, land etc.... It is just a new idea, maybe a new way of getting to everyone's goal.

"As long as we are brainstorming.....

We make the master flight in the normal weekend tests be primarily for non-titled dogs and dogs where their handlers don't plan to try to qualify for the MN. Passes here would not count toward qualifying for MN. This would be accompanied by Junior and or Senior flights just as it is now. 

Then Master National Member Clubs would be required to hold at least one Master National Qualifying Event per year. The entry fee for this could be higher than an ordinary Master Test since the costs would not be subsidized by the Junior and Senior stakes. 

Master National Member Clubs could choose to hold an MNQ the same weekend as the regular test if they had the facilities and help to pull it off or they could hold the event as a separate event on another weekend. If they chose to hold it the same weekend there should still be a regular MH offered.

A dog would not have to have their title to run in the MNQ event and a pass at the MNQ for an untitled dog would count towards their MH title as well as for qualifying for MN.

Only passes at the MNQ events would count towards the 6 required for MN."


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Reply to Lyle and Ray Shanks:
My reaction to your post is that I hope every handler who wants to run their own dog in Hunt Tests reads it and understands the motivations. Unless the Amateur participants take control of their destiny they can certainly read your post and accept your proposals. 

It appears to me that there is an inbalance between the Amateur and the Professional in the Hunt Test world. I am sure it will come back to balance, but only once the Amateur decides to act. This sport cannot be all about the money. But since we are talking money. 

Ray I noticed you entered 24 dogs in the Master in Middle Tennessee in May. I could scratch my entry for Saturday. I would be happy to sell you one of my Master Entries for $216 (12 dogs X proposed $18 AKC fee) Let me know if that sounds acceptable to you or your client because our club will certainly pass any additional fees to you. 
Erik Gawthorpe


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> In post #45, I put out this idea for discussion.....and I'm waiting to see if anyone else thinks it could help. It is not putting Am vs Pro, it is not complaining about not enough help, land etc.... It is just a new idea, maybe a new way of getting to everyone's goal.
> 
> "As long as we are brainstorming.....
> 
> ...


When I look at who puts on hunt tests in my area, they are primarily folks who run the Master National. Why would someone bust their hump for 2 weekends just for the privilege of working at another. Work 3 but only run 1. I am guessing the 2 weekend tests would be a nightmare with little organization. The people organizing them now would only have a vested interest in one test.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Yes, it is pretty obvious that they didn't let any Ams read this letter before sending it out or posting it to the Internet.



Gawthorpe said:


> Reply to Lyle and Ray Shanks:
> My reaction to your post is that I hope every handler who wants to run their own dog in Hunt Tests reads it and understands the motivations. Unless the Amateur participants take control of their destiny they can certainly read your post and accept your proposals.
> 
> It appears to me that there is an inbalance between the Amateur and the Professional in the Hunt Test world. I am sure it will come back to balance, but only once the Amateur decides to act. This sport cannot be all about the money. But since we are talking money.
> ...


----------



## don_adcock (Oct 28, 2012)

I was talking to a guy the other day about this and I think if you do away with the extra master test passes to qualify for the MN and just make the dogs that say have a MH title either get X number of passes or pay a X fee plus the normal entry fee. I'm sure that a bunch will just pay the fee. Make the fee what it would cost to have entered the five or six test. Use the X fee to give scholarships or give a portion to the club per day of the master national going over schedule!!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

fishduck said:


> When I look at who puts on hunt tests in my area, they are primarily folks who run the Master National. Why would someone bust their hump for 2 weekends just for the privilege of working at another. Work 3 but only run 1. I am guessing the 2 weekend tests would be a nightmare with little organization. The people organizing them now would only have a vested interest in one test.


Well I guess that is the problem, there are too many in this game now who are only in it for what they can get for themselves. I've been in the game for 17 years now. Between my husband and my self, we have done or helped with all aspects of the game including at the Master National level. 

What is troubling with the attitude so many have now is that is is causing the game to implode. Our club (Bryan-College Station Retriever Club, so you can look up the past hunt test sizes) is not growing like it once did, and those of us who are quite active are getting tired of being the only ones who will step up to take on any responsibility. So what will happen when we decide we don't want to do it any more?

We have to start looking at what is good for the sport in the long run, not just at what is good for me right now. If more thought had been given when the MNH title (plus all the numbers attached to the title) was asked for and granted, we wouldn't be in this mess. That was the beginning of the downfall. If the Powers-That-Be had decided to give the title to any dog that passed the Master National one time, because they truly are a Master National Hunter, there would not be the big drive to continue. Those who truly enjoy running their dogs could continue to do so for the love of the sport.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

TroyFeeken said:


> Darrin,
> Sure, a 50/50 is nice for a little extra cash, however in HT's, the amateur entry is getting smaller every event we have so the number of people willing to drop $10 or $20 is getting smaller, thus a smaller payout at the end. That then comes in line with the line further below of yours where you identify paying bird boys and have the membership sell stuff. I'm not sure where you're coming from and if your club pays at least minimum wage, but we pay a just a bit more and there's no way a club would break even on that route. Selling merchandise and refreshments is more employees and very very low margin considering the number of people that actually purchase things. I've lined up merchandise in the past for our club and for the small volume that is purchased, the margins are very small, somewheres around a few bucks for a t-shirt. You'd have to sell a lot of t-shirts to pay for a bird boy each hour.
> 
> The AKC fees suggestion is what is paid by the club at the end of the event. Unless the club turned those fee's around in the entry costs, it's just hurting the clubs. I'm having an extremely hard time how Lyle and his group were conscientiously able to keep a strait face when submitting that line in their proposal. There should be no reason for AKC to dictate additional fees or requirements of explanation on why a club can or cannot operate with more than one master flight. Perhaps the AKC would like to chip in to our land fund to provide more grounds.


The club I call home has adequate help and limited grounds Troy. We make decent money on our test every year by way of raffles, auctions and merchandise sales. I'm sure the raffle item (in fact I know) brings in the most income.

I don't know what would happen if we paid bird boys or flier guns. We are lucky enough to have a dedicated membership that helps out with that. It's not 5-10 people trying to pull off the whole thing with no helpers. 

I think the proposal as listed would drive business to larger, better equipped clubs and force the smaller ones to pass on the extra entry fee to their participants. 

I think if it were done as a straight pass through it would still be cheaper than travelling further in a lot of cases, although I'm sure every person's situation is different.

I think what may make my viewpoint a bit odd to people is that I don't see this as a huge amateur/pro problem. I don't see those guys as "offenders" or anything of the sort. Simply put the more dogs we run and the more people that participate the better chance we have of the game being around for our kids and grand-kids.

It's very easy for me to say, and I recognize that fully, so people can get mad at me if they want, but limiting entries stinks for the long term future of the game. Finding ways to increase capacity is what's in all of our best interest, once we think beyond ourselves being "put out" by a big entry.

That's the big picture view point (mine anyhow). 

Everyone who is an active worker seems to be tired of "getting crapped on" by a pro bringing 30 dogs to a test... $2,500 right there in entry fees and only one (big) vehicle plus maybe 3 people on the grounds. That would be 25 trucks and 30-40 people if they were all amateurs. Seems like the more big trailer loads you bring in the more efficient you could be and the less beating your grounds are gonna take.

If you had 2 - 30 dog pro strings it would take a lot less coordination than with one 30 dog string and 30 other individuals running. Get those guys to bring their bird boys and or clients out (I'd bet they would) and you'd have a pretty smooth running test.

Someone said early.. the pros bring the income and the clubs give them a place to make a living. 

Open minds on this stuff seem hard to come by. Everyone's viewpoint, however much we may disagree , is valuable to the discussion.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> If more thought had been given when the MNH title (plus all the numbers attached to the title) was asked for and granted, we wouldn't be in this mess.


Agreed. Lost in all this whining about limits is the fact that the problem lies not with clubs who may limit to keep from having to split MH (or likely when qualification opens for the 2015 in the east, double split) but the MNRC and AKC's MNH title. You can come up with all kinds of rules for opening, lotteries, or bake offs for getting into a HT but the problem is still going to be there until something is done by the MNRC and AKC.

As much as I am a firm believer that clubs must have the option to limit to whatever number the clubs decide is reasonable for them to carry out, it would almost be interesting to see the limits removed (or alternatively the punitive fees for not having limits suggested by these folks). I think you would then force a lot of clubs to drop MNRC membership, putting the MNHT qualification onus on fewer clubs, leading to more dogs going to those tests, leading to more dropping--a doggie death spiral.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

dexdoolittle said:


> Why not require a pro to bring a bird boy for every 10 dogs he enters or runs??


Great suggestion.
The post following yours pooh poohed it and said "it ain;t about bird boys". He then went on to list all the other behind the scene organizing headaches that go into putting on these events.

Well correct me if I'm wrong but one of those biggest headaches is arranging, organizing, teaching, supervising and riding herd on your hired inexperienced bird boys. 
I have met with a group of pimple faced kids on a Thursday evening before a trial and had to {Attemp to} teach them about what it takes to do the job. I have had a 16 yr old girl recoil with disgust and ask "you want me to touch that". This was in reference to a freshly killed fluffy warm mallard. Then you want to ask this same 16 yr old girl to throw that bird at the correct time with the correct arc and distance and hit a precise landing area with that same bird in the the final series on Sunday after that now stinky bird has been wet and been baking in the sun & had flies ****ting on it for two days?

Ask yourself this. If you have been campaigning your dog for years and spent countless time and resources in that quest and that throw in the 4th series could get you your title or a trip to the Nationals, would you rather have an experienced professional bird thrower tossing that bird or that 16 yr old girl who never saw a duck until two days ago and is disgusted to touch it and more interested in her texting than where & when that bird lands?

If the pros brought their own BB's it would eliminate much of this headache. Additionally if 10 pro's brought bird boys that would save $3000 {10 BB's X 10 Hrs X 3 days X $10 hr} That savings could result in a $10 reduction in entry fees for a 300 dog event or go towards keeping a struggling club viable, and able to buy more needed equipment, grounds etc.
I understand that the pro's must run many dogs and therefore don't have time to help However, The pro's are the ones making a living off of this sport and putting a huge stress on the unpaid volunteers & clubs with their large entries. Why shouldn't they be required to help staff their golden goose? It would be real easy {and More fair} to pass the cost on to their clients in handling fees IMHO.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> It ain't about the bird boys- that is a solvable issue. The issue is about available grounds, it's about a very few folks that put in long hours for weeks in advance of the test getting all the necessary arrangements in line, it's about too much crap and not enough appreciation.
> The volunteers that put these things on are about wore out and it's time to change something.
> The unfortunate part of the limited entries is that it is arbitrary- just as likely to shut out a club member as anyone. Maybe the solution is to just allow the clubs to decline entries from those that show up to the party with nothing but an appetite?
> 
> ...


Problem with that is just like many aspects of the MN, its all about popularity not most qualified or deserving. The MN has influenced the weekend hunt test to greatly now. We wouldn't be in this position if it hadn't started putting pressure on local clubs. Those clubs are now bearing the burden and strain of having to have multiple flights to accommodate a national event and so far the MN has shot down every idea that could possibly helped out small clubs. If 700 dogs qualify for the MN, assuming that each of those dogs fail one test in their quest to get 6 thats 4900 entries or 81 flights of MN dogs. With the trend of each club putting on one flight per year, thats 81 clubs needed just for the MN entries. I don't know how many total HT clubs there are but i'm guessing that 81 would be a good percentage. While the MN is creating the demand I don't see them doing anything to help with supply.

/Paul


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I've waited a couple of days to post. Never post in anger. Well, It just peeves me the more I think about it. The posters wants more chances to run, which is what we AM's want. If you go back to last year, in the Midwest, The amount of scratches were very lopsided. I looked at about 5 test, a few that filled up in hours or less. Can the writers of this proposal tell me how we can correct the few ( 3 people had 32 out of the 50 scratches in master test) who take up all the spots then scratch. In one test in Minnesota one guy had 9 scratches, in Nebraska another one had 6 scratches. When a test comes open they enter their whole truck in the push of a button, only to scratch a good share later on. This takes away the chances for anyone else. And I know , have a secondary list, but when you scratch a week or two out, not everyone can drop everything reschedule vacation to run. The clubs are the ones doing the work, they are the last ones to be blamed for the problem. Remember, they are giving of THEIR time. Regardless of what the government says I don't owe you a living. I will always vote no for my club going MN. Up to this post I would have still worked if my club choose to go that way. But now, nope. They did have one or two good points, but, 9-12 are just ridiculous. 12 though is in a class of it's own.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Well I guess that is the problem, there are too many in this game now who are only in it for what they can get for themselves. I've been in the game for 17 years now. Between my husband and my self, we have done or helped with all aspects of the game including at the Master National level.
> 
> What is troubling with the attitude so many have now is that is is causing the game to implode. Our club (Bryan-College Station Retriever Club, so you can look up the past hunt test sizes) is not growing like it once did, and those of us who are quite active are getting tired of being the only ones who will step up to take on any responsibility. So what will happen when we decide we don't want to do it any more?
> 
> We have to start looking at what is good for the sport in the long run, not just at what is good for me right now. If more thought had been given when the MNH title (plus all the numbers attached to the title) was asked for and granted, we wouldn't be in this mess. That was the beginning of the downfall. If the Powers-That-Be had decided to give the title to any dog that passed the Master National one time, because they truly are a Master National Hunter, there would not be the big drive to continue. Those who truly enjoy running their dogs could continue to do so for the love of the sport.


Thank you for your dedication and service to the sport we love. When I hear complaints about the current system, it revolves around workers unable to enter the test they are working. Like it or not, the reality of the situation is that most will stay home if their dog isn't entered.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Problem with that is just like many aspects of the MN, its all about popularity not most qualified or deserving. The MN has influenced the weekend hunt test to greatly now. We wouldn't be in this position if it hadn't started putting pressure on local clubs. Those clubs are now bearing the burden and strain of having to have multiple flights to accommodate a national event and so far the MN has shot down every idea that could possibly helped out small clubs. If 700 dogs qualify for the MN, assuming that each of those dogs fail one test in their quest to get 6 thats 4900 entries or 81 flights of MN dogs. With the trend of each club putting on one flight per year, thats 81 clubs needed just for the MN entries. I don't know how many total HT clubs there are but i'm guessing that 81 would be a good percentage. While the MN is creating the demand I don't see them doing anything to help with supply.
> 
> 
> /Paul


Untill clubs start to drop out, the MN has no reason to change, and most likely won't untill it starts to hurt there bank account.? Alot of this talk started back in Jan. I wonder how many if any have said enough is enough and dropped?


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

One easy solution is that only the owner can enter the dog. And that only one dog at a time, not 20 dogs in one stroke. No one complains that on Huntsec.com you can only enter one dog per day at a time. All take the time to do it. Most of the pros have their owners enter their own dogs listing the pro as the handler. This way they do not have to wait for the money or enter each dog seperately. So if the owner of all dogs is the only person that can enter their dog it will slow down the entries long enough that others can also have time to get online and enter. No reason why the HTS cannot send out a club email to let the members know that they are about to open for entries and if the member delays well, no ones fault but their own. Most member know well in advance if they plan on running so should not be any delay there.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Problem with that is just like many aspects of the MN, its all about popularity not most qualified or deserving. The MN has influenced the weekend hunt test to greatly now. We wouldn't be in this position if it hadn't started putting pressure on local clubs. Those clubs are now bearing the burden and strain of having to have multiple flights to accommodate a national event and so far the MN has shot down every idea that could possibly helped out small clubs. *If 700 dogs qualify for the MN, assuming that each of those dogs fail one test in their quest to get 6 thats 4900 entries or 81 flights of MN dogs. With the trend of each club putting on one flight per year, thats 81 clubs needed just for the MN entries.* I don't know how many total HT clubs there are but i'm guessing that 81 would be a good percentage. While the MN is creating the demand I don't see them doing anything to help with supply.
> 
> /Paul


That at assumes a 1:1 pass ratio and does not account for test run that a dog fails to qualify for.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

What is the qualification period for the MN?


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

FOM said:


> What is the qualification period for the MN?


August 1st to July 31st, with the MN around 8 to 10 weeks later.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

mjh345 said:


> Great suggestion.
> The post following yours pooh poohed it and said "it ain;t about bird boys". He then went on to list all the other behind the scene organizing headaches that go into putting on these events.
> 
> Well correct me if I'm wrong but one of those biggest headaches is arranging, organizing, teaching, supervising and riding herd on your hired inexperienced bird boys.
> ...



Some big assumptions in this post (and in Bubba's). BB certainly can be a problem in both quality and number. In other cases not so much. I have been to many test with 16 year old girls that were as good as anyone. I have been to test where they were as described above. My point is that in some cases help can be a problem and in others no problem at all. Our club actually has to limit the bird help that is available to us because there is always more that want to work than we need. We pay ours and they also throw and get paid at club training sessions so they are pretty fine bird personnel. Paul says they cannot find enough help and I believe that is a valid and true statement in some areas such as his. 
Land limits and help issues are both equally a problem. In some cases they can be solved and in others they cannot. 

Just for for fun lets talk about the idea of making pros supply help? How is that going to work logistically. If I were a pro with 30 dogs on my truck I would simply enter 9 with me as handler, 9 with each of two assistants, and three with their owners as handlers. I would rather pay my assistants to run client dogs that I get paid for than supply help for a test that is paid to enter. Each dog cost the handler exactly the same to enter regardless of pro or am handler. A lot of people assume that if those 10 slots were filled with AM's, those AM's would provide help. That has not been my observation over the years. In most clubs you have the exact same core group of people that work. Those 10 am's are sitting in the gallery bullshitting with each other not providing help. The pro is also not providing help because he is busy with dogs. I don't really see the difference from a help prospective, especially with limited entry (I do see a problem with the inequity in the entry system that allows anyone to enter 10+ dogs with the push of a button). What do you do if a pro agrees to bring a BB for the ten dogs he is running and then shows up without help? What if he says his help quit at the last minute or became ill and is sick in the truck? I just don't see this as a workable option. I do see it an area where the pros could step up on their own to help with a situation they agree is a problem. 

Nothing is is going to change much until the qualifications for the MN change. IMHO this is the major problem. Allowing limited entries was something that clubs wanted and they are the *volunteers* that make test happen. If a club wants to not hold a test or say "this is all we can handle" that is the way it is. You can't force volunteers to do anything they don't want to. That said, and the limit change made, it is time that the MN adjust accordingly to keep their member clubs.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

"Proud members of The Professional Retriever Training Association " I have not read all the thread but given what I have observed in the past year in person and 2nd/3rd hand rumors here and abroad I think it is full time for Proud members of The Professional Retriever Training Association to form their own circuit and quit taking advantage of the resources clubs provide. All other professions, like baseball, golf, football do so why not the pro dog trainers? Then you can do what you will with BS fee schedules and scratches after closings and filling slots in 15 mins or less. Make it a pro problem and good luck from me.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

It's actually TRAINERS not training. Mistake made on original post.


----------



## Elaine Mitchell (Jun 4, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> ....
> 
> *Just for for fun lets talk about the idea of making pros supply help? How is that going to work logistically. *If I were a pro with 30 dogs on my truck I would simply enter 9 with me as handler, 9 with each of two assistants, and three with their owners as handlers. I would rather pay my assistants to run client dogs that I get paid for than supply help for a test that is paid to enter. Each dog cost the handler exactly the same to enter regardless of pro or am handler. A lot of people assume that if those 10 slots were filled with AM's, those AM's would provide help. That has not been my observation over the years. In most clubs you have the exact same core group of people that work. Those 10 am's are sitting in the gallery bullshitting with each other not providing help. The pro is also not providing help because he is busy with dogs. I don't really see the difference from a help prospective, especially with limited entry (I do see a problem with the inequity in the entry system that allows anyone to enter 10+ dogs with the push of a button). What do you do if a pro agrees to bring a BB for the ten dogs he is running and then shows up without help? What if he says his help quit at the last minute or became ill and is sick in the truck? I just don't see this as a workable option. I do see it an area where the pros could step up on their own to help with a situation they agree is a problem. ....


I've wondered about that myself Corey. We keep seeing the idea tossed around that pros could help by providing some prorated share of the hired help, but no one has really talked about out HOW they are going to do that? For most of us, hunt test season lasts a few weeks in the spring and a few weeks in the fall. For the pros that travel with the weather, hunt test season lasts all but a few weeks of the year. They are going to need access to at least a couple different people, because nobody is going to be available EVERY weekend. Most of their regular staff is already working more than a full time job just in the day to day operation of the kennel. Their assistant trainers are likely spending their weekends running other tests/venues or lower stakes at the same test. Their bird-boys/kennel help are busy keeping the kennel running while everyone else is on the road. And at some point you have to figure out how to get them all a day off now and then. 

If a club hires a bird-boy they pay for the 10 or so hours a day they work. If a pro hires a bird boy, they are looking at paying them for the weekend, plus travel expenses - at minimum, meals & a separate room if it's an adult. And I wouldn't even think of hiring a high-school/college aged kid. After training all week, traveling Friday, being up before dawn to air dogs, running (literally) dogs all day, feeding & airing again in the evening; the last thing I'd want to do is supervise someone else's teenager all weekend. And that doesn't even take into account the liability involved with traveling with a minor if you are not the legal guardian.

I don't agree with everything that was in the letter, but I applaud it's authors for making the effort. They were willing to take a stand, in a very public venue and try to find a solution. We are really not at odds here, the clubs need the pros and the pros need the clubs. Nothing will get resolved until we are able to stop pointing fingers work together.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

It's easy to complain about pro's taking up too many spots. But in reality...I have to believe they are a much bigger help to most HT's, than they are a hinderance. Could most clubs attract 60 amateurs to fill spots in a given weekend? Maybe so, maybe not. Is it easier to have one guy show up with 20 dogs? Or 20 people show up with 20 dogs? Most pros running dogs, are doing so for their clients. So the argument that pro's are exclusively taking up all the spots at tests is a bit unfair. Black labs, yellow labs, chocolate labs, boykins, golden's, etc are taking up the spots. I have yet to see a pro dog trainer run a hunt test and pick up a bird with his mouth. Dogs fill the spots...it shouldn't really matter who the person is taking that dog to the line, so long as the dogs entry fee was paid.

That being said....if a pro commits to running x number of dogs, they should be held to that number. Amateurs should be as well. If you scratch a dog, you forfeit that spot and the first person on the waiting list fills in. If you scratch and the spot can not be filled, then you forfeit the money you paid to sign the dog up in the first place. The exception being injured dogs, bitch in heat, or similar.

The fact that help is so hard to come by is sad to me. For one it tells me that there is not enough younger people interested in the sport. It's also a sad sign, when folks who are fellow dog owners and handlers won't step up and ask how they can help out? I volunteer at almost every test I go to. Running my dog only takes about 5 minutes if he isn't acting like an idiot. I still have plenty of time to visit with folks, watch other dogs run, eat lunch, etc. But volunteering my time has enabled me to meet others who share the same passion and also helped me have a greater appreciation for what goes on during a test. The whole event could never happen if it were not for people volunteering their time. It also could not happen if it weren't for pro's and amateurs alike, paying lots of money to make the trip and run dogs for the weekend. So it's a give and take. The trick is finding the right balance to make everyone happy. 


My last point is not directly tied to the topic at hand. But it is related. I think the AKC needs to take another look at letting folks complete all junior and senior tests...even if a dog DQ's. Sending a handler home bc the dog broke on the first bird in a senior test is doing nothing for the sport. And it seems to me that it has really turned away potential newbies to the game. Why book a hotel room for two night, drive 500 miles, and spend the weekend away from your family, when you don't even know if you will get to compete in a competition you paid money to enter?? A lot of these handlers are amateurs, a lot of them want to get involved, a lot of them want to volunteer and learn more, but they are sent packing before they ever get a chance to find out how fun the game can be. If clubs want more help, if they want more people involved at a local level, they need to figure out how they can better attract new handlers at a grass roots level. If you bring in 15 new members a year....that's 15 folks who can throw birds, shoot flyers, sell tshirts, setup wingers, judge tests, etc. That makes hosting master tests with 120 dogs a hell of a lot easier.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

The suggestion that I am opposed to the most is #3, pertaining to, "Allowing clubs to limit the Junior and Senior entries, this will allow clubs to use higher limits on Master stakes."

The Junior and Senior stakes don't have a problem, the Masters do. I'd like to hear from these mega-pros exactly how small the Juniors and Seniors need to be to accommodate The larger Master event! I don't understand how turning away Junior and Senior entries could be good for the sport.

Joe O'Brien


----------



## Texas Hunter (Dec 1, 2007)

Has anyone brought up this idea? What about creating a new stake? A "Pro Master Hunter" or "Master Hunter Pro". A similar format to what the field trial game has. Have it start on Friday's, open to anyone, but mainly professionals. Loosen up the rules a bit. Longer distances for marks and blinds, something like a Master National, but for a weekend. Basically a more challenging test. Make these "pros" start working for their money.

Saturday start the "regular" master, but only for amateurs. Wasn't this game made for amateurs to start with? Plus start the senior and junior tests on Saturday and/or Sunday.

If a club is in a bind for whatever reason and needs to, let them split the stakes up. Two stakes in the spring and two stakes in the fall, in no particular order.

Here's another novel idea. Have two Master Nationals per year. The regular Master National and a Master National for pros.

I know, I know. It looks too much like a field trial. But hey, they've been doing it for what, almost one hundred years?

Now this is just my opinion, but could it be we have too many pros playing an amateur's game?


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Quacktastic said:


> That being said....if a pro commits to running x number of dogs, they should be held to that number. Amateurs should be as well. If you scratch a dog, you forfeit that spot and the first person on the waiting list fills in. If you scratch and the spot can not be filled, then you forfeit the money you paid to sign the dog up in the first place. The exception being injured dogs, bitch in heat, or similar.


Great idea! 
They should not be able to enter another dog in the same event. I believe the way the system works now, is that there is no waiting list. So a handler can scratch a dog and re-enter another dog right away filling the hole. This smells of impropriety when someone scratches a dog and enters another.



Elaine Mitchell said:


> I've wondered about that myself Corey. We keep seeing the idea tossed around that pros could help by providing some prorated share of the hired help, but no one has really talked about out HOW they are going to do that? For most of us, hunt test season lasts a few weeks in the spring and a few weeks in the fall. For the pros that travel with the weather, hunt test season lasts all but a few weeks of the year. They are going to need access to at least a couple different people, because nobody is going to be available EVERY weekend. Most of their regular staff is already working more than a full time job just in the day to day operation of the kennel. Their assistant trainers are likely spending their weekends running other tests/venues or lower stakes at the same test. Their bird-boys/kennel help are busy keeping the kennel running while everyone else is on the road. And at some point you have to figure out how to get them all a day off now and then.
> 
> If a club hires a bird-boy they pay for the 10 or so hours a day they work. If a pro hires a bird boy, they are looking at paying them for the weekend, plus travel expenses - at minimum, meals & a separate room if it's an adult. And I wouldn't even think of hiring a high-school/college aged kid. After training all week, traveling Friday, being up before dawn to air dogs, running (literally) dogs all day, feeding & airing again in the evening; the last thing I'd want to do is supervise someone else's teenager all weekend. And that doesn't even take into account the liability involved with traveling with a minor if you are not the legal guardian.


Rather than hire a gunner and pay all the expenses that you listed above, why not sponsor a gunner? It would be a lot cheaper to make a deductible donation to a club of $75.00.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> My last point is not directly tied to the topic at hand. But it is related. I think the AKC needs to take another look at letting folks complete all junior and senior tests...even if a dog DQ's. Sending a handler home bc the dog broke on the first bird in a senior test is doing nothing for the sport. And it seems to me that it has really turned away potential newbies to the game. Why book a hotel room for two night, drive 500 miles, and spend the weekend away from your family, when you don't even know if you will get to compete in a competition you paid money to enter?? A lot of these handlers are amateurs, a lot of them want to get involved, a lot of them want to volunteer and learn more, but they are sent packing before they ever get a chance to find out how fun the game can be. If clubs want more help, if they want more people involved at a local level, they need to figure out how they can better attract new handlers at a grass roots level. If you bring in 15 new members a year....that's 15 folks who can throw birds, shoot flyers, sell tshirts, setup wingers, judge tests, etc. That makes hosting master tests with 120 dogs a hell of a lot easier.


If the dog got dropped in the first series in either the junior or the Senior for breaking or acting like a fool your really not doing the newbie handler or the dog any favors by letting them continue running. Time to go home and go back to the drawing board. If going out on the first bird of your first hunt test turnes you away forever then I don't think there was ant real commitment to start with..


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My take is not to ask the pro to hire anyone. Instead politely ask the clients to help. Many pros have clients that come to watch their dog run. Most people with this amount of interest can easily handle a clipboard, rebirds, shoot flyers, help with equipment and all of them can deliver lunches. At a recent test 5 out of 7 stakes used pro provided gunners. Without the pros, gunners would have been recruited from the gallery.

Pros do not normally get credit for providing helpers. They do it to make the test run smoother. It appears many don't even realize this happens regularly.

We can easily debate this ad infinitum but I have the following suggestion. Next time you find yourself in a hunt test gallery sitting in a chair offer to help. Hold the clipboard for an hour. Odds are that individuals dogs haven't been aired or watered since hitting the grounds. Find out when the flyer shooter runs a dog and shoot for 10 dogs. It is unsettling to come in from the flyer station to find out the judges are waiting for dogs. Let the shooter have time to properly air/water without feeling rushed. Find out when or how lunches are delivered & take care of this task. When the series is over, help break down and set up instead of finding a shade tree and taking a nap. If all of that is too strenuous then at the very least take the time to thank those that are working!!

If everyone in the gallery would help for an hour the work becomes easy for all.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Good post 81. 
As granny said " many hands make small work" 
We have it lucky here- many hands, great grounds and captive bird techs. 
Some of this good luck comes from asking for input and having inclusion of people. As said before - for the most part our pros help thinking of gunners, tire changers, truck shufflers, throwers and the list could go on. 

For some asking for help is hard and not everyone lives in a rural ag area where physical work is a way of life 

Maybe not all parts of the country are like ours with respect this situation ? 

Dk


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> If the dog got dropped in the first series in either the junior or the Senior for breaking or acting like a fool your really not doing the newbie handler or the dog any favors by letting them continue running. Time to go home and go back to the drawing board. If going out on the first bird of your first hunt test turnes you away forever then I don't think there was ant real commitment to start with..


Todd,
The whole idea of the hunt test has been lost then. It isn't a competition for money, it's not a fight to the death. It's an opportunity to come run your dog and see if they can match up to a standard. It's supposed to also be a chance to learn and have fun also. What if football games ended as soon as someone jumped off sides? You wouldn't see very many people going to games anymore. 

A lot of newer dog owners are intimidated by the fact that they may get sent packing if they make a mistake. Running your first hunt test is nerve racking and expensive enough...I think the thought of getting sent home before a dog can even pickup a bird is ridiculous. HRC allows you to run all test in a given weekend, even if the dog won't be scored bc of a DQ. I think the AKC is missing the boat on bringing new blood to the sport, in having this rule. And that new blood is often what is needed to help grow the membership of clubs. It also grows their general budget, their pool of volunteers to help host events, training ground opportunities, etc.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Gotta agree with Todd. If someone is put off by failure, they have no place running. Failure should make you train harder/better. You already get a controlled break in SH and can restrain your dog.in JH. I failed my first JH, never got a bird. Dog games are not the place for a "gimmee" attitude. Put on and run fun trials with a club if you just want to have fun and not worry about meeting a standard.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Handler Error said:


> Great idea!
> They should not be able to enter another dog in the same event. I believe the way the system works now, is that there is no waiting list. So a handler can scratch a dog and re-enter another dog right away filling the hole. This smells of impropriety when someone scratches a dog and enters another.
> 
> 
> I don't have an issue with a dog getting replaced. My issue is with people who sign up 3 dogs, and then scratch two and only run 1 dog. We need to figure out a way to fill those spots. They shouldn't be left empty if people are being turned away. And those who scratch for reasons besides emergencies, or medical reasons, should be held to the commitment they made and pay for the spot they signed up for.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

In post 81 - "Instead politely ask the clients to help." Good post but I have to share my experience at a recent MNRC. After working birds all day for several days I needed a break. I approached the - by then very small gallery - and asked for a volunteer to allow me to take a break for a bit. No response. So, as the gallery was composed almost exclusively of clients of one pro, that left me with a very sour attitude towards certain folks who seem to expect a good show for their dogs, but aren't willing to do anything other than write a check. Fortunately those folks are the minority, but on that particular day, they were the totality.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Rainmaker said:


> Gotta agree with Todd. If someone is put off by failure, they have no place running. Failure should make you train harder/better. You already get a controlled break in SH and can restrain your dog.in JH. I failed my first JH, never got a bird. Dog games are not the place for a "gimmee" attitude. Put on and run fun trials with a club if you just want to have fun and not worry about meeting a standard.




It ain't exactly a "gimmee attitude" if you paid your $75 to participate. It's just my humble opinion that it's a huge barrier to getting new people involved in the sport. Go back and look at the number of posts about clubs not having enough bird throwers, shooters, Marshall's, etc. The writing is on the wall.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Quacktastic said:


> It ain't exactly a "gimmee attitude" if you paid your $75 to participate. It's just my humble opinion that it's a huge barrier to getting new people involved in the sport. Go back and look at the number of posts about clubs not having enough bird throwers, shooters, Marshall's, etc. The writing is on the wall.


You paid an entry fee to run your dog, so run it to the standard, or fail, that's the way the game is played. Making it easier to keep your dog running just doesn't cut it for the majority who work at training their dogs. For me, it would take something away from my weekend and I'd continue losing further interest in running HT if the standard is ignored and DQ'd dogs continue playing. I don't think breaking dogs should be rewarded like that anyway. I disliked that aspect of HRC at the one test I ran. If you want to stick around and get your money's worth, try asking to run test dog and stick around to work, proving that you're worth the effort. I think noobs would get more out of it then if they made some connections and learned to really train their dog, vs making excuses about wanting to keep playing regardless of failure. Those are the ones that stick around, the ones that want it badly enough to keep training and learning.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Quacktastic said:


> It ain't exactly a "gimmee attitude" if you paid your $75 to participate. It's just my humble opinion that it's a huge barrier to getting new people involved in the sport. Go back and look at the number of posts about clubs not having enough bird throwers, shooters, Marshall's, etc. The writing is on the wall.


I think you're missing some of the things commented on here regarding this possible idea. The only way this would fly would be in probably the JH stake. If a dog breaks, well, that's the handlers fault for not hanging on as the dogs can be restrained. If the dog isn't able to find the bird, well, the test is about marking and for the most part, that's it. If a dog can pick up a couple singles, well they better get back to training. A JH test is just a step more difficult than picking up tennis balls in the back yard. You aim your dog, they don't need to be steady and they just have to pick up the bird and deliver it to hand. If the rules would change to allow dogs and handlers to keep playing and not have the dealing with being dismissed/dropped, it seems like you're now treading on the levels of entitlement which isn't the game we play. Just because you paid doesn't mean you get to keep running if your dog can even pick up the birds.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Quacktastic said:


> Todd,
> The whole idea of the hunt test has been lost then. It isn't a competition for money, it's not a fight to the death. It's an opportunity to come run your dog and see if they can match up to a standard. It's supposed to also be a chance to learn and have fun also. What if football games ended as soon as someone jumped off sides? You wouldn't see very many people going to games anymore.
> 
> A lot of newer dog owners are intimidated by the fact that they may get sent packing if they make a mistake. Running your first hunt test is nerve racking and expensive enough...I think the thought of getting sent home before a dog can even pickup a bird is ridiculous. *HRC allows you to run all test in a given weekend, even if the dog won't be scored bc of a DQ.* I think the AKC is missing the boat on bringing new blood to the sport, in having this rule. And that new blood is often what is needed to help grow the membership of clubs. It also grows their general budget, their pool of volunteers to help host events, training ground opportunities, etc.



Even if there was nothing in the AKC reg's and guidelines that prohibits this, most AKC tests have double or more the number of entries and from a time standpoint it could not be done. If a dog implodes I usually allow the handler to finish the series in Jr to give them as much of a positive experience as possible. Sometimes in Sr's if time allows. But to allow them to run the entire test is not practical and IMO would usually end badly for both handler and dog.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Actually, I think the regulations do address it, Chapter 3, Section 21:
Section 21. Call Backs. At the end of the first
series in each category (Junior, Senior and Master), and
every series thereafter, the Judges will call back all dogs
which they wish to evaluate further, and will score them
in additional hunting situations until the testing category
has been concluded.
Whenever a dog is graded “0” by two judges on the
same ability, or whenever it is evident that a dog can not
receive a Qualifying score, it shall not be called back to
run in subsequent series.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

TroyFeeken said:


> I think you're missing some of the things commented on here regarding this possible idea. The only way this would fly would be in probably the JH stake. If a dog breaks, well, that's the handlers fault for not hanging on as the dogs can be restrained. If the dog isn't able to find the bird, well, the test is about marking and for the most part, that's it. If a dog can pick up a couple singles, well they better get back to training. A JH test is just a step more difficult than picking up tennis balls in the back yard. You aim your dog, they don't need to be steady and they just have to pick up the bird and deliver it to hand. If the rules would change to allow dogs and handlers to keep playing and not have the dealing with being dismissed/dropped, it seems like you're now treading on the levels of entitlement which isn't the game we play. Just because you paid doesn't mean you get to keep running if your dog can even pick up the birds.



Troy,
The example of a dog breaking and being DQ was one example. How about a handler that accidentally talks to his dog after he calls for the bird? Or a dog that switches on a mark bc of a strong crosswind? All reasons for you to be DQ immediately. At the master level I can understand being out. I have been there. It sucks, but you know your running at a level that demands no errors. The junior level and senior level are not the big leagues. There is a reason that your not graded as strictly in those tests, as dogs at the master level. Handlers and dogs are still learning. And JH/SH also aren't usually running flights of 60 dogs. Usually it's more like 15 or 20. Dogs that are handling reasonably should be allowed to run the rest of the weekend. Hell, stick them at the back of the pack. That way bad weather, darkness, etc doesn't effect anyone who is still being judged. But give the younger kids and newer handlers a chance to get involved in the sport and enjoy it before you start telling them they need to either train harder or not bother showing up on the weekend.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Quacktastic said:


> Troy,
> The example of a dog breaking and being DQ was one example. How about a handler that talks to his dog after he calls for the bird? Or a dog that switches? All reasons for you to be DQ immediately. At the master level I can understand being out. The junior level and senior level are not the big leagues. There is a reason that your not graded as strictly in those tests, as at the master level. Handlers and dogs are still learning. And they also aren't usually running flights of 60 dogs. Usually it's more like 15 or 20. Dogs that are handling reasonably should be allowed to run the rest of the weekend. Hell, stick them at the back of the pack. That way bad weather, darkness, etc doesn't effect anyone who is still being judged. But give the younger kids and newer handlers a chance to get involved in the sport and enjoy it before you start telling them they need to either train harder or not bother showing up on the weekend.


In JH, a dog should never switch because they only seen one bird go down and sent on that retrieve. If the dog attempts to switch with that, it's either very poor marking set up or the dog just isn't ready for that level of event. In SH if a dog attempts to switch, the dog needs to handle in that level so the handler should whistle sit the dog and handle back to the bird. Again, not being ready for the level of testing entered. If a dog isn't capable of even attempting to do the work, then the lesson should be taught to the handler, which most all minor stake judges will provide for insight and assistance. If a dog is just out of control and disturbing a lot of ground, another reason for failing, that eats up a ton of time. Allowing a dog to commit major failures that isn't prepared to run at that level is better off not being allow to commit more failures for the betterment of their future training.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Look at the bigger idea Troy...your nit picking my examples and not focusing on the main point.

This whole thing has turned into a bitch and moan session. Im glad some guys stepped up and made recommendations to try and help the process. Beyond that...this thread is now just everyone getting on their soap box about things they don't like. Me included.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Actually, if you are out in the first series, you can wait around and run last after all dogs still in run if time allows. The judges do not have to judge you but if there is time, you can ask to run. I have done that on more than one occasison as a judge for a newbie. And if I had the time I watched and helped. By the time you get to Senior, I would think most handlers would not what to reward the dog for messing up. If the handler messed up than I might consider it but with no flyer. Of course this is off the subject of this thread. 
I still believe if you can only enter one dog at a time it will slow things down so more people can enter.


----------



## Elaine Mitchell (Jun 4, 2009)

Quacktastic said:


> Look at the bigger idea Troy...your nit picking my examples and not focusing on the main point.
> 
> This whole thing has turned into a bitch and moan session. Im glad some guys stepped up and made recommendations to try and help the process. Beyond that...this thread is now just everyone getting on their soap box about things they don't like. Me included.


Quacktastic, at risk of dragging this thread even further off topic, I can see your point. Is it beneficial to the dog to continue running after it has been DQ’d? Rarely. But JR/Started is more about the handler than the dog in most cases and it can absolutely be beneficial to the handler. It’s easy to say "go home and train, come back when your dog is ready". But it’s also easy to forget that for lots of people just starting out, tests are the only training they have. 

I remember vividly a time when I didn’t know anybody, and knew even less about training. The first time my big fluffy, bandana wearing golden ever saw a real bird was at a Coastal Empire test. I didn’t have birds and had no idea where to get them. Lois McCracken was one of my judges and after he wouldn’t pick up the bird on land she let us borrow one and encouraged us to try again in the afternoon. He wouldn’t get in the water that afternoon so we’ll never know if he would have picked up the bird or not. The dog failed, but I went home with a new friend, a new plan and a couple of birds to train with. 

We used those birds until they fell apart and tried again at North GA. I know David McCracken was one of the judges; the other was a lady but I don’t recall who. We didn’t get a pass but we learned the value of training around decoys and different cover and we met lots of people in the gallery. We got to watch a young girl that couldn’t have been 9-10 run her first test. I’ve since watched that young girl grow into a fine young trainer. The dog failed, but for the handler it was a success. 

We tried again at Midlands. Given our track record, we only signed up for Saturday. We ran under Russell Scott and David McCracken that weekend. I'm sure David dreaded to see us come to the line by then but he still encouraged us. By this point he was bringing the bird back but delivery (even to the area) was questionable. Still no ribbon, but we were closer and we met more people and picked up more training tips. We decided come back on Sunday and give it another try. We ended up getting our first pass that day (one of the reasons as a hunt secretary you’ll rarely hear me complain about walk-ups). But more importantly we ended up joining the club. In the years since I’ve loaded wingers, marshaled, held office, taken pictures, been hunt secretary, packed lunches, conducted raffles, you name it. We never would have made it without the encouragement of all of those people. Continuing to run a dog that wasn’t ready to run wasn’t good for the dog at all … it took years to undo the damage done, but for the handler (and the club) it was invaluable.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Elaine Mitchell said:


> Quacktastic, at risk of dragging this thread even further off topic, I can see your point. Is it beneficial to the dog to continue running after it has been DQ’d? Rarely. But JR/Started is more about the handler than the dog in most cases and it can absolutely be beneficial to the handler. It’s easy to say "go home and train, come back when your dog is ready". But it’s also easy to forget that for lots of people just starting out, tests are the only training they have.
> 
> I remember vividly a time when I didn’t know anybody, and knew even less about training. The first time my big fluffy, bandana wearing golden ever saw a real bird was at a Coastal Empire test. I didn’t have birds and had no idea where to get them. Lois McCracken was one of my judges and after he wouldn’t pick up the bird on land she let us borrow and encouraged us to try again in the afternoon. He wouldn’t get in the water that afternoon so we’ll never know if he would have picked up the bird or not. The dog failed, but I went home with a new friend, a new plan and a couple of birds to train with.
> 
> ...



Bingo! And a great story too! Thanks for sharing the experience Elaine.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Quacktastic said:


> Todd,
> The whole idea of the hunt test has been lost then. It isn't a competition for money, it's not a fight to the death. It's an opportunity to come run your dog and see if they can match up to a standard. It's supposed to also be a chance to learn and have fun also. What if football games ended as soon as someone jumped off sides? You wouldn't see very many people going to games anymore.
> 
> A lot of newer dog owners are intimidated by the fact that they may get sent packing if they make a mistake. Running your first hunt test is nerve racking and expensive enough...I think the thought of getting sent home before a dog can even pickup a bird is ridiculous. HRC allows you to run all test in a given weekend, even if the dog won't be scored bc of a DQ. I think the AKC is missing the boat on bringing new blood to the sport, in having this rule. And that new blood is often what is needed to help grow the membership of clubs. It also grows their general budget, their pool of volunteers to help host events, training ground opportunities, etc.


Maybe to go along with the orange pass ribbons we could give out black participation ribbons for those that got dropped but wanted to hang around and run there dog, that way nobodys feelings get hurt. I'm well aware that HRC does this and I don't agree with it there either why would I want to waste the judges and the workers time by running a dog out of contention. Life is full of failures, the dog games are no different the sooner you learn it the better off you and your dog will be..


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> Maybe to go along with the orange pass ribbons we could give out black participation ribbons for those that got dropped but wanted to hang around and run there dog, that way nobodys feelings get hurt. I'm well aware that HRC does this and I don't agree with it there either why would I want to waste the judges and the workers time by running a dog out of contention. Life is full of failures, the dog games are no different the sooner you learn it the better off you and your dog will be..



I don't have a problem with my dog not getting called back or a DQ. He also runs at the master level and qualified for California this year. So he and I aren't in the same category as a young kid running his 15 month old lab in a junior series event. How about we start issuing a $100 fine to people when their dogs don't get called back? Teach them another lesson about life. "Thanks for taking up spots by entering your stupid untrained mutt and wasting our time! Here is a fine for $100. Now don't come back until you get that flea bag trained right." How's that sound? 

I also like the idea of the participation ribbons. Maybe we can have everyone throw dog crap at them when they go up to accept the participation ribbon. That way we can shame them from ever attempting to run their dog again, if it's not ready to participate at that level! You just solved half the worlds problems. People won't dare sign up for tests unless their dog can win a national field trail championship, and thus opening up plenty of spots for all the hardcore dog handlers like yourself.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Quacktastic said:


> I don't have a problem with my dog not getting called back or a DQ. He also runs at the master level and qualified for California this year. So he and I aren't in the same category as a young kid running his 15 month old lab in a junior series event. How about we start issuing a $100 fine to people when their dogs don't get called back? Teach them another lesson about life. "Thanks for taking up spots by entering your stupid untrained mutt and wasting our time! Here is a fine for $100. Now don't come back until you get that flea bag trained right." How's that sound?
> 
> I also like the idea of the participation ribbons. Maybe we can have everyone throw dog crap at them when they go up to accept the participation ribbon. That way we can shame them from ever attempting to run their dog again, if it's not ready to participate at that level! You just solved half the worlds problems. People won't dare sign up for tests unless their dog can win a national field trail championship, and thus opening up plenty of spots for all the hardcore dog handlers like yourself.


Ummmmm....................

Any chance I could get a key to your medicine cabinet?

Just wondering regards

Bubba


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

This is a little off topic but both the AKC and UKC have opened up a plethora of dog sports in which you get a ribbon if your dog has a pulse, which should satisfy those handlers' desire to brag up on their dogs that can't pass a JH test. Let's take obedience; used to be a CD was the beginning step and you actually had to train the dog to get the novice CD title. Now you can do rally obedience, where you can talk to the dog and follow signs and it doesn't even have to be off lead; any dog with a pulse can get a rally title. And now there's beginner novice, sort of a "pre-CD" title. And let's not forget all these new sports, like dock jumping, lure coursing and barnyard rat chasing. For dock jumping, there are titles for a dog that jumps only a few feet, Lure Coursing "ability" where a dog can title if it shows it's willing to chasing a plastic bag! ((((eye roll))). What a proud moment for a retriever ((((eye roll)))) and if you've seen one, all they have to do is run a few dozen yards, preferably shrieking at the top of their lungs. In JH your dog should deliver to hand, which does require a little training, but you can get an HRC or NAHRA started without it even doing that and you can talk to the dog, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see people participate in organized events with their dogs, but the dumbing down of America has continued even into the dog games. So no, I don't think in AKC Jr. the dog should be allowed to continue after it's been DQ'd because there are plenty of other venues where it can get lots of ribbons and strings of letters to affix to its name simply because its owner entered.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Barnyard rat chasing???? I gotta check that one out.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Julie R. said:


> ... and you can talk to the dog, too. ...


Real hunters never talk to their dog, why should handlers in a "hunting test"?

;-)


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Barnyard rat chasing. Sounds dangerous. (I accidentally locked myself in a horse stall with a big rat once. Glad I had a pitchfork. The 3 of us did quite a dance.)


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

GulfCoast said:


> Barnyard rat chasing???? I gotta check that one out.


Here ya go http://www.barnhunt.com/701/

Last year the AKC officially recognized it so now you, too can get a title for your dog, no matter what breed! Thinking mine and anyone else's that live on a farm have earned them. Oh wait.... they'd be DQ'd because I don't think the dogs are actually allowed to kill the rats.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

Julie R. said:


> This is a little off topic but both the AKC and UKC have opened up a plethora of dog sports in which you get a ribbon if your dog has a pulse, which should satisfy those handlers' desire to brag up on their dogs that can't pass a JH test. Let's take obedience; used to be a CD was the beginning step and you actually had to train the dog to get the novice CD title. Now you can do rally obedience, where you can talk to the dog and follow signs and it doesn't even have to be off lead; any dog with a pulse can get a rally title. And now there's beginner novice, sort of a "pre-CD" title. And let's not forget all these new sports, like dock jumping, lure coursing and barnyard rat chasing. For dock jumping, there are titles for a dog that jumps only a few feet, Lure Coursing "ability" where a dog can title if it shows it's willing to chasing a plastic bag! ((((eye roll))). What a proud moment for a retriever ((((eye roll)))) and if you've seen one, all they have to do is run a few dozen yards, preferably shrieking at the top of their lungs. In JH your dog should deliver to hand, which does require a little training, but you can get an HRC or NAHRA started without it even doing that and you can talk to the dog, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see people participate in organized events with their dogs, but the dumbing down of America has continued even into the dog games. So no, I don't think in AKC Jr. the dog should be allowed to continue after it's been DQ'd because there are plenty of other venues where it can get lots of ribbons and strings of letters to affix to its name simply because its owner entered.


(((Eye roll)))


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Quacktastic said:


> Todd,
> The whole idea of the hunt test has been lost then. It isn't a competition for money, it's not a fight to the death. It's an opportunity to come run your dog and see if they can match up to a standard. It's supposed to also be a chance to learn and have fun also. What if football games ended as soon as someone jumped off sides? You wouldn't see very many people going to games anymore.
> 
> A lot of newer dog owners are intimidated by the fact that they may get sent packing if they make a mistake. Running your first hunt test is nerve racking and expensive enough...I think the thought of getting sent home before a dog can even pickup a bird is ridiculous. HRC allows you to run all test in a given weekend, even if the dog won't be scored bc of a DQ. I think the AKC is missing the boat on bringing new blood to the sport, in having this rule. And that new blood is often what is needed to help grow the membership of clubs. It also grows their general budget, their pool of volunteers to help host events, training ground opportunities, etc.


You are right it is about meeting a standard. Once you can no longer meet the standard it is time to evaluate why you failed to meet the standard. A test is called a test for a reason, it is a test and you pass or fail. It is not a training situation and while you feel that since you paid your money to run a dog that was not ready, or at least not ready that day, many others do not want to sit around for extra hours to accommodate the running of dogs that are out of qualifying. As a judge I can promise you that after volunteering my weekend and traveling hours the last thing I want is to have to spend even more hours watching someone's dumb ass dog run all over hell and back just because you paid your $75. I will happily sit and judge as many dogs in contention for a qualification as are entered, but I will not spend an extra minute allowing you to train your dog just because you paid and entry fee (keep in mind that exactly ZERO of your entry fee goes into my pocket, the gunners, or bird personels pockets). 
I don't know you and have no idea of your history and experience in the sport, but one of the worst things you can do is to continue to run a dog that has failed. You generally do far more dammage to your training than good. 
IMHO, nerves are a part of the game. If you aren't nervous taking any dog to the line why bother? Those nerves are excitement and the day I am not nervous taking a dog, be it a master hunter or a first time junior dog, is the day I will stop running. It's is just part of it and a newbie should be thinking about what they are doing and what could go wrong just as an experienced handler should. 
I see few newbies that disappear after their first test. Most are inspired because they find out there is a whole lot more to training dogs than they thought. 
Just in case you were unaware of it, in the HRC grand there are a fair amount of dogs that don't get the first bird. That is far from juniors. 


Now now all that said what does any of this have to do with the original post or the problem of entries?


----------



## dgreenwell (Apr 16, 2010)

I appreciate the original posters effort in starting the dialog, but I think it comes down to if the the clubs have limited resources, they should be able to limit the entries. Likewise I feel that if the entries are limited then handlers should be limited in the number of dogs they run...pros and amateurs alike. If it is limited to 60 dogs maybe handlers are limited to 5 dogs

If you are pro trying to make a living and need to run 20 dogs. Go to the tests that are not limited.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> Here ya go http://www.barnhunt.com/701/
> 
> Last year the AKC officially recognized it so now you, too can get a title for your dog, no matter what breed! Thinking mine and anyone else's that live on a farm have earned them. Oh wait.... they'd be DQ'd because I don't think the dogs are actually allowed to kill the rats.


Do they have a national?


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

badbullgator said:


> You are right it is about meeting a standard. Once you can no longer meet the standard it is time to evaluate why you failed to meet the standard. A test is called a test for a reason, it is a test and you pass or fail. It is not a training situation and while you feel that since you paid your money to run a dog that was not ready, or at least not ready that day, many others do not want to sit around for extra hours to accommodate the running of dogs that are out of qualifying. As a judge I can promise you that after volunteering my weekend and traveling hours the last thing I want is to have to spend even more hours watching someone's dumb ass dog run all over hell and back just because you paid your $75. I will happily sit and judge as many dogs in contention for a qualification as are entered, but I will not spend an extra minute allowing you to train your dog just because you paid and entry fee (keep in mind that exactly ZERO of your entry fee goes into my pocket, the gunners, or bird personels pockets).
> I don't know you and have no idea of your history and experience in the sport, but one of the worst things you can do is to continue to run a dog that has failed. You generally do far more dammage to your training than good.
> IMHO, nerves are a part of the game. If you aren't nervous taking any dog to the line why bother? Those nerves are excitement and the day I am not nervous taking a dog, be it a master hunter or a first time junior dog, is the day I will stop running. It's is just part of it and a newbie should be thinking about what they are doing and what could go wrong just as an experienced handler should.
> I see few newbies that disappear after their first test. Most are inspired because they find out there is a whole lot more to training dogs than they thought.
> ...



I think a few of you confused my suggestion, for a personal grievance with failing out of test. I have failed with my dog. We almost all have. I still stuck around and shot wingers, helped setup the water portion of the test, rebird, etc. It's a great opportunity to learn more and not waste an entire weekend. I wish more folks would do this. However, I think many at the lower levels would prefer to get a second chance at running their dog in a test they helped pay to put on. I understand that sometimes it's not beneficial to run a dog when they screw up. You don't need to explain that to me. A handler is welcome to pickup a dog anytime. But I also think it can be beneficial to handler and dog to be given the rest of the weekend to put things together. I didn't say it needed to turn into a training session. I didn't say judges couldn't ask a handler to pickup their dog if it's out of control. I just said that those who pay for a series of test should be allowed to complete the test in its entirety. It's one of the biggest complaints I have heard from folks who are just starting.

What does this have to do with the original post? Connect the dots...
Go read the previous posts about how HT entries are too limited because clubs can't find help, can't find training grounds, can't find new ways to make money, and can't find judges. The old way of doing things doesn't exactly seem to be working that well in certain cases. Bring more people into the sport, and I guarantee some of these problems will fix themselves.


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

badbullgator said:


> Nothing is is going to change much until the qualifications for the MN change. IMHO this is the major problem. Allowing limited entries was something that clubs wanted and they are the *volunteers* that make test happen. If a club wants to not hold a test or say "this is all we can handle" that is the way it is. You can't force volunteers to do anything they don't want to. That said, and the limit change made, it is time that the MN adjust accordingly to keep their member clubs.


I like this approach and it's simply all that is needed. If you eliminate the congestion all goes back to normal for most involved at all levels.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

The proposals are self serving, I get that.
The proposed increase to 75 dogs vs 60 would add significant time to an already tight schedule. 60 dogs with a 65% pass rate at 6 min a dog take approx. 15 hrs. Add 2 hours for rebird, lunch etc and we have two 9 hours days. 75 dogs with a 65% pass rate a min a dog takes approx. 18 hrs. Add the 2 hours and we have two 10 hour days. If thing go wrong ie weather finishing the test on Monday become a real possibility. All the dedicated works will be happy to stay over and finish the test.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

that's another one of many problems as I see it a 65% pass rate. that number should be below 50% in all weekend test. as everyone keeps saying our dogs are better trained so maybe we need to hold more difficult tests.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Do you judge????? If not get started. I follow the rule book.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

skyy said:


> that's another one of many problems as I see it a 65% pass rate. that number should be below 50% in all weekend test. as everyone keeps saying our dogs are better trained so maybe we need to hold more difficult tests.


Run FTs and your wish will be granted! 

If 100% pass the standard than so be it...it is a HT against a standard. If you want to change the standard than get involved with the RAC for HT, but until then, the standard is the standard.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

skyy said:


> that's another one of many problems as I see it a 65% pass rate. that number should be below 50% in all weekend test. as everyone keeps saying our dogs are better trained so maybe we need to hold more difficult tests.


If we are looking are dogs that already have a MH title and are running the Master tests to qualify for the Master national, then that pass rate does not seem outrageous. Most of the dogs with a MH should be able to pass a MH test. 

Most of the tests I have seen and attended are are amateurs just trying to title their dogs, and about 1/3 pass the test.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

My intent was not to start a debate on pass rates. The proposal to increase a flight to 75 dogs is not without significant impact. We are discussing a proposal(s) put forth by Pros that are feeling the heat of discontent. I believe it is time to have a civil debate of having Open and Amateur category's in the HT game.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

wojo said:


> My intent was not to start a debate on pass rates. The proposal to increase a flight to 75 dogs is not without significant impact. We are discussing a proposal(s) put forth by Pros that are feeling the heat of discontent. I believe it is time to have a civil debate of having Open and Amateur category's in the HT game.


Why? Same standard, same ribbon. Why would it matter the profession of the one holding the leash? At the very least it would be incredibly inefficient for the clubs and require a split that the limits are intended to avoid. Even if a club wanted to have a split, why have one that is not filled because it is Am only and turn pro dogs away?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Just for kicks & giggles, I looked at a recent test. 32% had MH or MNH behind their names. These dogs have proven they can meet the standard at least 5 times. If all these dogs pass then only 6 more in a 60 dog flight results in 42% pass rate. 42% may sound like a high pass rate to some but only 6 dogs in this hypothetical test earned a leg towards their MH.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

All very good questions worthy of discussions. I suggest you go the Master National site and read the proposal that reaffirms the amateur influence and control. Would be best start another thread of the subject ,I think.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

fishduck said:


> Just for kicks & giggles, I looked at a recent test. 32% had MH or MNH behind their names. These dogs have proven they can meet the standard at least 5 times. If all these dogs pass then only 6 more in a 60 dog flight results in 42% pass rate. 42% may sound like a high pass rate to some but only 6 dogs in this hypothetical test earned a leg towards their MH.


It's been my experience that very few MH pass every test; this is why Pros etc. have to campaign them at every available test, and often times hand pick tests/areas to run in. This is necessary to get all dogs the 6 passes(in the allotted 1yr time period); they need to qualify for the whole truck go to the MNH. It's very rare for any pro to pass every single dog on their truck at any particular test; I've only seen it happen in this area ~2 times. On the other hand I know quite a few amateurs with MH dogs that only run their 6 tests; any test anywhere and qualify for the MH, they usually have a goal like I will run @ most 8 tests to qualify if I don't qualify in that we're not going. A goal-limit is something the MNH should look into a dog with straight passes every year to qualify doesn't need to prove as much as a dog needing 10+ tests a year to qualify, Dogs with lets say 12-18+ straight MH passes (equating to 2-3yrs of qualification) doesn't need to keep proving they are qualified. On the other hand a dog needing 20-30-40 tests to get those same 12-18 passes; still has something to prove with regard to whether they are qualified to go. 12/20 = dog is an MH 60% of the time (D); 12/12 equates to a dog who is an MH 100% of the time (A+)


----------



## outdoordave (Oct 11, 2004)

What would happen if pros were eliminated from hunt test?

I am a pro by the way. Maybe small time, but a pro.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> It's been my experience that very few MH pass every test; this is why Pros etc. have to campaign them at every available test, and often times hand pick tests/areas to run in. This is necessary to get all dogs the 6 passes(in the allotted 1yr time period); they need to qualify for the whole truck go to the MNH. It's very rare for any pro to pass every single dog on their truck at any particular test; I've only seen it happen in this area ~2 times. On the other hand I know quite a few amateurs with MH dogs that only run their 6 tests; any test anywhere and qualify for the MH, they usually have a goal like I will run @ most 8 tests to qualify if I don't qualify in that we're not going. A goal-limit is something the MNH should look into a dog with straight passes every year to qualify doesn't need to prove as much as a dog needing 10+ tests a year to qualify, Dogs with lets say 12-18+ straight MH passes (equating to 2-3yrs of qualification) doesn't need to keep proving they are qualified. On the other hand a dog needing 20-30-40 tests to get those same 12-18 passes; still has something to prove with regard to whether they are qualified to go. 12/20 = dog is an MH 60% of the time (D); 12/12 equates to a dog who is an MH 100% of the time (A+)


No debate here!. I own 2 MH & they most definately fail tests. My intended point was with some Master flights a 50% pass rate could be extremely low and others extremely high. Depends on the talent and experience of the handlers and dogs in the flight.

I really like your grading system! My guess is the grades correlate very highly to pass rates at the Master National.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

outdoordave said:


> What would happen if pros were eliminated from hunt test?
> 
> I am a pro by the way. Maybe small time, but a pro.


Very simply put, the game would go on. Maybe not as many clubs maybe bigger entry fees, but it would continue.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

outdoordave said:


> What would happen if pros were eliminated from hunt test?
> 
> I am a pro by the way. Maybe small time, but a pro.


like Tom said, life would go on. Our club has few pros that run most of the time. Nice to have the entries, but we would survive. 
That said I don't have an issue with pros. They are meeting a demand. People bitch about them, but somebody is using them.


----------



## Quacktastic (Oct 4, 2013)

I like the suggestion of giving some sort of credit to dogs that have already earned master national qualifications in the past. All MNH get an honorary invite back. And say that previous qualifiers only need to pass 3 MH test per year. This would cut down on the wild goose chase at the end of the year from folks trying to rack up 6 passes.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> Here ya go http://www.barnhunt.com/701/
> 
> they'd be DQ'd because I don't think the dogs are actually allowed to kill the rats.


Are you kidding? What's the point then? Interesting...

Re: limits-I see the reasons for them. I remember the days of small MH flights and the panic for splitting flights. *I think that limits need to stay, but MN club needs to go back to 5 out of 6 tests (or whatever it was) a couple of years ago. *At that time, there was much less of a problem then.

Someone earlier said something about MH dogs not going for MNH just need to quit running? This is fun. Why should they quit running? I'm not quitting after titling at whatever level we decide we are going to stop at. The whole point of this is to enjoy time with my dogs...but then others just want titles. If I'm willing to take the chance of failing and to pay my $$, I should be able to run if I can get in a test (the last was said tongue in cheeck). I don't want to go to field trials. I don't have time to train for that, so I'm going to have fun at something I CAN realisticly train for.

Sue Puff


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

outdoordave said:


> What would happen if pros were eliminated from hunt test?
> 
> I am a pro by the way. Maybe small time, but a pro.


As stated life would go on, most likely smaller entries, one thing is for certain it would force people to step up to the plate and run there dogs if they plan to continue, some "owners" would drop out but the absentee owners really weren't contributing anything to begin with, and hopefully some of "owners" that did hang around would also become active in a club. It isn't going to happen, like Cory said there just supplying a demand..


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> It's been my experience that very few MH pass every test; this is why Pros etc. have to campaign them at every available test, and often times hand pick tests/areas to run in. This is necessary to get all dogs the 6 passes(in the allotted 1yr time period); they need to qualify for the whole truck go to the MNH. It's very rare for any pro to pass every single dog on their truck at any particular test; I've only seen it happen in this area ~2 times. On the other hand I know quite a few amateurs with MH dogs that only run their 6 tests; any test anywhere and qualify for the MH, they usually have a goal like I will run @ most 8 tests to qualify if I don't qualify in that we're not going. A goal-limit is something the MNH should look into a dog with straight passes every year to qualify doesn't need to prove as much as a dog needing 10+ tests a year to qualify, Dogs with lets say 12-18+ straight MH passes (equating to 2-3yrs of qualification) doesn't need to keep proving they are qualified. On the other hand a dog needing 20-30-40 tests to get those same 12-18 passes; still has something to prove with regard to whether they are qualified to go. 12/20 = dog is an MH 60% of the time (D); 12/12 equates to a dog who is an MH 100% of the time (A+)


I just eyeballed a few MH titled dogs on some serious pro trucks, the pass rate is very high, somewhere between 80 and 90 percent. 

For the amateur it is much lower though the pass rate increases significantly once the dog has the title. 

So, if 20/60 dogs are with the pro and the remaining 40 are amateur trained and handled and if the pass rates 80 percent for dogs on pro trucks and 20 percent for dogs with amateurs, then the pass rate for the whole test is 40 percent.

If it is 40/60 pro and 20/60 amateur then test pass rate for test is 60 percent.

The point is, in a test with dogs run by good pros the pass rate might be very high.

Edit: I didn't look at a lot of dogs, just enough to give me a sense of proportions.

Edit 2: Your idea about looking at pass rates is interesting, which I guess was really your point...


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Pros won't give a damn if you charge them more, they will pass on the cost to the client. Kind of like charging the oil companies more tax--they just pass it on to us at the pump. BAD IDEA.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

BuddyJ said:


> Pros won't give a damn if you charge them more, they will pass on the cost to the client. Kind of like charging the oil companies more tax--they just pass it on to us at the pump. BAD IDEA.


I missed where charging pros more was suggested, but perhaps it was. At any rate I don't agree it would be a bad idea. If the cost is past on to owners that can't or won't take part in being an active club member then so be it. That is not to say I am for it. I never really got why someone would not want to train their own dog other than time. Must make someone very proud to say look at my MH........that I paid for......


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I missed where charging pros more was suggested, but perhaps it was. At any rate I don't agree it would be a bad idea. If the cost is past on to owners that can't or won't take part in being an active club member then so be it. That is not to say I am for it. I never really got why someone would not want to train their own dog other than time. Must make someone very proud to say look at my MH........that I paid for......


Unless there's a rule change to allow a pro- and/or am. only master, the AKC will not allow you to charge one entry more than another in the same division, not even a discount for club members that work.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

I have not plowed through all 14 pages of this thread so pardon if the following repeats something previously offered. Following are 2 additional thoughts to my earlier post #26.

1. From Lyle's letter. "4) Allow a Club to host a 3 rd event each year. Currently clubs can offer a Junior and Senior event only. Allow this 3 d event to be a Master only or a combination of Master and/or Junior & Seniors." AKC now allows clubs to hold up to 4 events per year, so this point is moot. 

2. Since the purpose of limiting entries was to offer relief to clubs with limited resources, amend the rules to disallow dbl headers with limited entries. If a club has the resources to run 4 or more master stakes as 2 separate tests on the same weekend they can just as easily run a single master with 4 flights. (Dbl headers used to be very popular but many clubs stopped doing that due to the logistical headaches involved. The entry limits make dbl headers less of a logistical headache while generating more income. But they don't, IMO often equate to a better event.)


----------

