# The ongoing MH entry fiasco



## mjh345

Now that the HT season is firing up again it is time for another discussion about what can be done to solve this ongoing problem.

I was watching the NFL playoffs Sunday when I received notice that the Rose Country Hunt Test had just opened for entries.
We jumped into action. The gentleman whom I am training with in Texas got to the computer first and got entered. I then jumped on the computer to get entered. By the time I had entered my info the test had closed all 180 spots had been filled and I was locked out. Less than five minutes had passed.
In that time frame all 180 spots got filled. In that time frame, some Handlers got more than 20 dogs entered.

It appears to me that it has evolved into a situation where having inside info as to the time when entries will open and being quick on a computer have become more important than dog training and handling skills.

I happened to have gotten a heads up as to the opening time; yet still couldn't get entered in time. How does a newcomer who has Zero contacts supposed to have a chance? Shouldn't we be encouraging new blood? If they can't get entered then we are killing off any potential newcomers from entering our sport. That doesn't bode well for the future and long term health of this game IMHO 

I've got to believe that the premium service which EE offers to some pro's allowed them to get 20+ dogs entered with a click of a button, thereby allowing the test to close so quickly and precluding people such as myself and others, who have to fill manually out their credit card info, address etc from even having a chance to run one dog. 
How is that fair? Wasn't the Hunt test game started to allow the average Joe who trains his own dog a venue to compete with that dog?

I'm not bashing the Pro's. They are good for the game, and help to raise the bar for all. I enjoy competing against the best. Over 70% of the slots were filled by 10 handlers within minutes. I'm just saying that this system is badly broken and needs to be more inclusive & fixed quickly.

Yesterday the Port Arthur Club was supposed to open for entries at 7:00 pm. It had been announced in the premium for some time; which at least eliminated the need for inside info as to opening date. I got on the computer and checked at 6:00 pm and it said that "ENTRIES POSTPONED" Nothing has changed since.

My only hope is that AKC and or EE had them postpone their entries so that they can take quick action to resolve this fiasco


----------



## quackaholic

It is the posts like this that have me wondering if I can feasibly enter tests to run my dog. The expense of the test aside, if the spots you can actually afford to take your dog to, fill up so fast. How can the blue collar guy get a break. I can't afford to take off work and travel. I need to hit local tests. And if you can't get in that eliminates one more guy.


----------



## Cayuga Dew

IDK - I have been out of the game for several years! Should I even bother to get back in? Besides Hunt Tests having this problem, do derbies and qualifying also?

Sounds very political. Is this a political issues?


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 let's suppose that this test had paper (snail mail) entries. The club secretary opens the mail box to find your entry form and 200 other entries. Are you or the "new blood with no contacts" better off?
How about when you get your entry form and check returned a week after the close because you didn't get in? Better or worse not knowing if you are in or out until you get your check back?


----------



## miketuggle

Good luck with this problem. I have been following this "fiasco" as you call it for a while on retriever club e-mails. 

After working dogs off and on for 30+ years, I now have a 5 month old that has more potential than _any _of her predecessors. She has a long and happy road in front of her.... _ Please get this resolved so she can live up to her potential._

Mike


----------



## quackaholic

I'm not saying whether it's political. But it seems local clubs have adopted Entry Express to save hassle of doing it themselves. That opens it to the world of internet. Thus quickly filling spots and rooting average Joe out of local event. I haven't actually tried yet. But the fear is there.


----------



## captainjack

No Dew it is mot political. It's simple supply and demand. There are more customers than the system (event) can handle. No one is going to worry about how to get new people into the game when every event is selling out in 5 minutes. 

And no, field trial events do not limit entries so you shouldn't worry about getting into a derby or Qual. 90% of the field going home every weekend without a ribbon tends to keep the demand in check. ;-)


----------



## captainjack

quackaholic said:


> I'm not saying whether it's political. But it seems local clubs have adopted Entry Express to save hassle of doing it themselves. That opens it to the world of internet. Thus quickly filling spots and rooting average Joe out of local event. I haven't actually tried yet. But the fear is there.


Quack, you seam to believe that EE handling the entries somehow increases demand. The demand is not driven by the method of entry. People run hunt tests because they like to run hunt tests, get ribbons, title dogs, and qualify for the MN. It's not because they can enter through EE.

And if you ever want to see something political, watch a club secretary and board members filter through 200+ entries picking and choosing which 180 get in.


----------



## DoubleHaul

quackaholic said:


> I'm not saying whether it's political. But it seems local clubs have adopted Entry Express to save hassle of doing it themselves. That opens it to the world of internet. Thus quickly filling spots and rooting average Joe out of local event. I haven't actually tried yet. But the fear is there.


How does average joe get rooted out of the event via entry express? Same chance as anyone else. 

Yes, EE saves a hassle. A huge one. You have never been HT secretary getting paper entries, folks showing up at your door, bouncing checks, etc., obviously, or the why would not even enter your mind.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> mjh345 let's suppose that this test had paper (snail mail) entries. The club secretary opens the mail box to find your entry form and 200 other entries. Are you or the "new blood with no contacts" better offy n Kind of a DUH question isn't it Glen? Are you asking if someone who doesn't have any inside contacts or info is better off if there is truly a level playing field?? From a strictly mathematical perspective he is obviously better off when he has an equal shot at one of the 180 spots than he does in a situation where 70% of the slots are taken within 5 minutes by 10 handlers who were tipped off about the 5 minute window of opportunity. I got tipped off to the 5 minute window of opportunity and still didn't get in. How does the guy with out the tip off have any chance?
> How about when you get your entry form and check returned a week after the close because you didn't get in? Better or worse not knowing if you are in or out until you get your check back I will assume this is either rhetorical or not a serious question


My answers in red


----------



## Migillicutty

mjh, The same happened to me. I am one of the new bloods. I got a text when this test opened; I stopped what I was doing, grabbed the ipad and was online within a minute. By the time I got my CC info in the test was full. I am not retired, and while I can take off work if I so desire, I don't want to travel several states north to run a hunt test. I don't care about the MNH, just trying to finish out the last few tests I need to get MH(would have already been accomplished if I had been able to get in some more tests last HT season), on my dog and focus on the FT's. Looks like I may just be running the FT's and forget about the MH. It's beyond frustrating, but Like Captain said who is going to be worrying about new blood when demand is so high the tests are filling up in a matter of minutes. 

The solutions are out there and have been proposed to even the playing field of getting entered. It seems no one cares to make a change as long as these tests are filling up this fast and AKC is getting their money and the clubs have full tests.


----------



## Migillicutty

DoubleHaul said:


> How does average joe get rooted out of the event via entry express? Same chance as anyone else.
> 
> Yes, EE saves a hassle. A huge one. You have never been HT secretary getting paper entries, folks showing up at your door, bouncing checks, etc., obviously, or the why would not even enter your mind.


Average joe doesn't have prefilled info in to enter 20 dogs with a click of a button. Nor does average joe know before the opening that it is about to open so they are poised to click that button. When a handful of handlers can enter 20 plus dogs and fill the test with a click of a button that they have had prior knowledge of date and time of opening, average joe has very bad odds.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Migillicutty said:


> Average joe doesn't have prefilled info in to enter 20 dogs with a click of a button. Nor does average joe know before the opening that it is about to open so they are poised to click that button. When a handful of handlers can enter 20 plus dogs and fill the test with a click of a button that they have had prior knowledge of date and time of opening, average joe has very bad odds.


You don't have your dog's information pre-entered? It is just as fast for you as for anyone else. I can't believe after all this time folks still think it is all some big conspiracy--there are more entries than there are slots. Whining about it on the internet every time you don't get in one isn't going to change anything. Everyone already knows.



Migillicutty said:


> Looks like I may just be running the FT's and forget about the MH.


That would certainly solve the problem entries but if you think that EE is a giant conspiracy against Average Joe, you are going to LOVE field trials!


----------



## huntinman

My question is why would anyone want to play a game they can't count on actually participating in?

There are plenty of other games out there and your dog sure as hell won't care as long as retrieving is involved.


----------



## Mountain Duck

quackaholic said:


> I'm not saying whether it's political. But it seems local clubs have adopted Entry Express to save hassle of doing it themselves. That opens it to the world of internet. Thus quickly filling spots and rooting average Joe out of local event. I haven't actually tried yet. But the fear is there.


Hey quack, I think DoubleHaul and myself have a conference call tonight to find a HT Chairman for the club. You want me to throw your name in the hat, so you can be better assured a spot! 

J/K........sort of!  

Hey, come to think of it, we haven't filled our last two master tests.....must be doing something wrong!


----------



## Migillicutty

DoubleHaul said:


> You don't have your dog's information pre-entered? It is just as fast for you as for anyone else. I can't believe after all this time folks still think it is all some big conspiracy--there are more entries than there are slots. Whining about it on the internet every time you don't get in one isn't going to change anything. Everyone already knows.
> 
> 
> 
> That would certainly solve the problem entries but if you think that EE is a giant conspiracy against Average Joe, you are going to LOVE field trials!


Dogs info is entered. CC info doesn't save. I don't think its a EE conspiracy at all. I think the system as it is set up worsen the odds for the average Joe.


----------



## freezeland

quackaholic said:


> I'm not saying whether it's political. But it seems local clubs have adopted Entry Express to save hassle of doing it themselves. That opens it to the world of internet. Thus quickly filling spots and rooting average Joe out of local event. I haven't actually tried yet. But the fear is there.


I have been watching threads and posts like this for quite some time now. It has convinced me to not even bother with the HT game anymore. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## DSemple

QA2




.....Don


----------



## T-Pines

Mountain Duck said:


> Hey, come to think of it, we haven't filled our last two master tests.....must be doing something wrong!


Eric,

I've been training in the snow ... in case I am able to make the trip next fall, I want to be prepared.:razz:

For some reason, part of post #1 reminded me of the joke about two guys running from a chasing mountain lion.;-)

Jim


----------



## Mountain Duck

T-Pines said:


> Eric,
> 
> I've been training in the snow ... in case I am able to make the trip next fall, I want to be prepared.:razz:
> 
> For some reason, part of post #1 reminded me of the joke about two guys running from a chasing mountain lion.;-)
> 
> Jim


Ha! Yeah, you have to be prepared....those ice ball, hair matt thingies can make it rough!


----------



## quackaholic

Mountain Duck said:


> Hey quack, I think DoubleHaul and myself have a conference call tonight to find a HT Chairman for the club. You want me to throw your name in the hat, so you can be better assured a spot!
> 
> J/K........sort of!
> 
> Hey, come to think of it, we haven't filled our last two master tests.....must be doing something wrong!


LOL.
Capt Jack misunderstood me. Imagine that. I just said it automatically increases the odds of being drawn from say 1/10 to 1/150,000. Exaggerated please don't hate. 
Hopefully point was made


----------



## Losthwy

freezeland said:


> I have been watching threads and posts like this for quite some time now. It has convinced me to not even bother with the HT game anymore. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


Don't blame you one bit. You're smart to walk away.
A club and it's members works without pay to put on an event for others getting paid. What's wrong with that deal?


----------



## Dave Mirek

The Rose County test is a prime example of how the existing system will drive away future growth of the program. The MN qualifications are the root of this issue. I know not all dogs names on EE are current with titles so my numbers are probably low, but this particular test has 103 of 181 dogs entered that already have an MH behind their name. I don't want to take away from anyone's reason for running a test but when you have a program to title against a standard and people can't get into it time and time again because the real competition of the day is getting a slot ahead of a dog that has proven that they can meet the defined standard then they are going to find someplace else to go. I personally feel that there should be a period of time where untitled dogs can enter and then after that anyone can enter. I also feel that the test opening dates should be set up similar to the closing dates, say it opens 4 weeks prior to the event on Sunday at 4:00 Pm or something along those lines. 

The hunt test program is a great program for anyone who loves their dogs, and I want to see it grow, unfortunately I fear that the current direction it is headed is going to hurt our future. I also am concerned that the rules and set-ups continue to change for the wrong reasons. The original standards were great to measure a set level of a dog, but we now are changing the standard because we are testing a dog that met the standard as a 2 year old and now he is still running by against the same standard as an 8 year old who obviously has increased his skills and experience over the past 6 years.

These are just some thoughts of mine, hopefully they spark positive conversation that can result in improvements for everyone. And as a side note my dog is on a pro truck so I support the need for guys like myself who also runs his own dog as well as the pro who runs her when I cant.


----------



## 2tall

captainjack said:


> No Dew it is mot political. It's simple supply and demand. There are more customers than the system (event) can handle. No one is going to worry about how to get new people into the game when every event is selling out in 5 minutes.


and that is very short sighted thinking. A club that is selling out in 5 minutes to people entering 20 dogs at a time will not be getting "NEW" players. And believe me that will trickle up to hurt the pros as well.


----------



## freezeland

Losthwy said:


> Don't blame you one bit. You're smart to walk away.
> A club and it's members works without pay to put on an event for others getting paid. What's wrong with that deal?


exactly.............


----------



## Keith Stroyan

Why not run HRC or start a NAHRA club if AKC is "full"?


----------



## badbullgator

There is a very large club in the south east that is not going to use EE for its four master flight event. They are going to accept entries on their website and allow no more than four dogs to be entered at a time by anyone. I am sure one of them will post on this thread. It will eliminate the abuse that takes place with the EE VIP program, or those who get tipped off and fill all the entries by registering 20 dogs at once. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out because pro entries are usually high at this event with lots of pros running a lot of dogs. 
More power to em. Somebody has to do something and they are at least trying.


----------



## Terry Britton

There are online tools that you can set for events to show up, or phrases so that anytime that event or phrase shows up, you get instantly emailed and possibly text messaged. I know when I took a managing technology class, there were Google analytic tools that could do this. Companies use them to see anytime their name is used on the internet to see if anything bad is happening to their name. 

Maybe there are people that know how to use these tools that are filling these events so fast. 

Good luck.


----------



## badbullgator

Keith Stroyan said:


> Why not run HRC or start a NAHRA club if AKC is "full"?



How ow many times has that been answered? Very limited NAHRA to the point that they are not in most areas. HRC and AKC are two different games and most don't like the other. If I am dressing in camo from head to toe you can bet I will be shooting live birds.


----------



## Migillicutty

badbullgator said:


> There is a very large club in the south east that is not going to use EE for its four master flight event. They are going to accept entries on their website and allow no more than four dogs to be entered at a time by anyone. I am sure one of them will post on this thread. It will eliminate the abuse that takes place with the EE VIP program, or those who get tipped off and fill all the entries by registering 20 dogs at once. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out because pro entries are usually high at this event with lots of pros running a lot of dogs.
> More power to em. Somebody has to do something and they are at least trying.


Fantastic. I hope more clubs will follow suit and soon.


----------



## pat addis

would it help entry levels if dogs didn't have to re qualify every year? I know hrc doesn't have to re qualify every year and finished seems to always fill up I'm not saying it's a better idea just wondering


----------



## Jerry Beil

Sadie & Ruby said:


> The hunt test program is a great program for anyone who loves their dogs, and I want to see it grow...


The MNH and the surplus of entries are a tremendous opportunity for it to grow. We have demand for more entries than we have slots. We need to turn that somehow into a way to create more slots, which is what would grow the sport - more dogs, more handlers, more revenue, more people involved etc.

The problem is how to increase the number of slots. If we don't, in the long term it's going to collapse because the folks that put on these events as volunteers are not being replenished by new blood fast enough, and grounds that can be used aren't getting more available. The AKC and professional trainers stand to gain the most from the increased growth as entry fee revenues increase and numbers of folks wanting professionally trained dogs increase. Seems like those two groups ought to get together and figure out ways they can help clubs grow and help clubs find land to train and test on, and increase the incentive for clubs/club members to put on events. Maybe require pros to be members of the clubs they run events at (or some variation on that)?


----------



## mjh345

pat addis said:


> would it help entry levels if dogs didn't have to re qualify every year? I know hrc doesn't have to re qualify every year and finished seems to always fill up I'm not saying it's a better idea just wondering


I think it would solve the problem.
I dont think the powers that be would be for it as it would take $ out of their pocket


----------



## Dave Mirek

HRC finished gets entries because of things like the 500 and 1000 point recognitions, just like the MH54 recognition.


----------



## huntinman

badbullgator said:


> How ow many times has that been answered? Very limited NAHRA to the point that they are not in most areas. HRC and AKC are two different games and most don't like the other. If I am dressing in camo from head to toe you can bet I will be shooting live birds.


He said START a NAHRA club. If there isn't one in an area, it's not all that hard to do. Been there done that.


----------



## Gun Dawg

Not sure why AKC doesn't get the message. This is totally wrong............... 
AKC Hunt test are for the weekend warriors, NOT Pro's handling some client's dog. 
Pros belong in the FT game against other Pros.
Make all AKC HT's open only to the owners of the dawgs, to run/handle period.
What satisfaction could a HT owner have with a Pro running & titling there dog in the 1st place. After all it's just pass or fail.
Knough said, get with it, the Pros have polluted the HT arena.


----------



## Black Duck Dog

agree totaly


----------



## Willie Alderson

MJH probably wasn't around during the snail mail days. Therefore doesn't understand the post. He also doesn't understand the responsibilities of the club secretary. EE is a HUGE help. And it's not EE responsibility whatsoever. 

Our club is in a region where we don't get a lot of entries. We are happy to get 30 master entries. 

Hindsight is 20/20. This topic has been beat to death. Limit test entries because of lack of grounds, lack of help, lack of judges etc. If you don't like it and are that hung up about getting into an event...then you'll have to travel. You could also move. But don't move here. I like to enter my events at 11:45pm before it closes at 11:59, 10 days prior to the event.


----------



## Thomas D

HRC also gets many Finished entries for dogs getting ready for grand.
AKC would continue to get large entries in weekend tests regardless of the MN not requiring yearly quals. Why do those who have already qualled continue to run?


----------



## captainjack

Migillicutty said:


> Fantastic. I hope more clubs will follow suit and soon.


You should also hope that you sent the club secretary a Christmas card. Otherwise your entry will be one if the ones filtered out. You know, leveling tbe playing field and all.


----------



## captainjack

So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered. 

So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...

1. Accept an unlimited number of entries. 

2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots.

3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in. 

There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't be more simple or fair. 

Make it happen TRC.


----------



## wojo

American Kennel Club
James P. Crowley 
Executive Secretary
260 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10016

To whom it may concern;

I am writing to you today to address a very serious matter that is directly affecting the ability of handlers to enter and compete in American Kennel Club (AKC) sanctioned hunting tests for retrievers. Please consider this letter a formal complaint alleging prejudicial conduct as per, Section IV “Conduct Prejudicial to the Sport” of the Dealing with Misconduct Guide for Event Committees amended December 11, 2013. This letter serves as a request for an immediate investigation by the AKC.

Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers amended December 2012 addresses entry requirements. The regulations and guidelines clearly state there are to be no special inducements. Specifically, “A hunt test-giving club which accepts an entry fee other than that published in its premium list or entry form, or in any way discriminates between entrants, shall be disciplined. No club or member of any club shall give or offer to give any owner or handler any special inducements, such as reduced entry fees, allowances for board or transportation or other incentive of value for a certain number of entries or shall give or offer to give in consideration of entering a certain number of dogs, any prizes or prize money, except the officially advertised prizes or prize money, which prize money shall be for a stated sum or a portion of the entry fees [emphasis added].”

The vast majority of AKC Hunting Retriever Clubs are using an online service for the management of entries to AKC sanctioned retriever hunt tests, www.EntryExpress.net. Entry Express has created a VIP program to process the entries of only “high volume handlers” such as professional trainers. By design, the VIP program openly discriminates amongst entrants in clear violation of Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers. The VIP program allows select entrants to enter an unlimited number of dogs to events with limited entries with the simple click of a mouse without paying for the entries in advance. Only VIP entrants are permitted to enter events without paying for the entry in advance as all other entrants must do. Entry Express has further enshrined this discriminatory practice but closing acceptance into the VIP program to those currently in the VIP program. For further information on the Entry Express VIP program please refer to: https://www.entryexpress.net/Vip.aspx.

This discriminatory practice of managing entries by Entry Express has been further compounded by the overwhelming demand to enter “Master level” AKC Retriever Hunting Tests. “Master level” limited entry AKC Hunting Retriever tests have in some cases filled to capacity within minutes of opening for entries on Entry Express at a predetermined time that has not been publically disclosed. This discriminatory practice has allowed VIP entrants in some cases to enter 15+ dogs to an event limited to 60 dogs in seconds without paying for entry fees much to the detriment of amateur handlers who must enter and pay entry fees for their dogs. 
Clubs that except and allow dogs to compete that have been entered through the VIP program are guilty of discrimination. Handlers that are excluded from entering can file a complaint within 5 days of the event as per AKC hunt test regulations. 


The AKC Hunting Retriever test program was specially created for amateur handlers as an alternative to Retriever Field Trials. I believe it to be quite prejudicial to the sport that discriminatory practices such as the Entry Express VIP program give professional handlers preferential treatment, to the impairment of the average amateur handler who has an exceedingly difficult time in entering limited entry events.

I appreciate your swift actions in resolving this matter and offer my assistance to you in correcting this discriminatory entry practice.

Very Respectfully,


Ed Wojciechowski 
1590 Tyson Road
Monticello, FL 32344

920-858-8140
[email protected]


----------



## wojo

American Kennel Club December 15, 2014
Performance Events Department
P.O. Box 90051 
Raleigh N.C. 27675-9051
Attention:
Doug Ljungren
Vice President of Sporting & Events

Jerry Mann
Field Director Sporting Group 

Gentlemen
The enclosed document was submitted per AKC procedure. If a club accepts entries that used the VIP system and the dogs participated in the event then an owner that has been discriminated against has the right to file a complaint against the club. The VIP system discriminates thus individuals that are excluded from an event because of VIP entrants has a right to file a complaint. Dogs that are entered through a system that discriminates should then be disqualified as per AKC Hunt Test Rules. This is a request to review the information and render a favorable ruling on behalf of the Amateur handler. 
Respectfully

Ed Wojciechowski
1590 Tyson Road
Monticello, FL 32344

920-858-8140
[email protected]


----------



## wojo

The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 said:


> My answers in red


No mark, I mean do you think a newbie with no contacts has a better chance of getting in a limited entry test by a) mailing a check to a club secretary or by b) sitting by the computer trying to time the opening of an event?

I believe that option a) has zero probability of success.


----------



## krapwxman

wojo said:


> The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
> so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


So while your letters are well intended I'm sure, bottom line is you are accusing hunt test clubs (that use EE) of discrimination.


----------



## captainjack

wojo said:


> The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
> so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


Ed, my post #41 solves your problem.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> No mark, I mean do you think a newbie with no contacts has a better chance of getting in a limited entry test by a) mailing a check to a club secretary or by b) sitting by the computer trying to time the opening of an event?
> 
> I believe that option a) has zero probability of success.


Glen, I'm sure David is happy to have you carry his water. However your question is a hypothetical that has parameters that don't exist in our present system.
In our present system Joe newbie doesn't have the contacts that allow him insider info as to the opening times of events. So in your hypothetical; part b)... he must sit at his computer for days at a time and hope to get lucky and randomly refresh his computer at the precise time that the event opens. If he bucks those long odds & gets lucky and hits the time exactly then he is still at a disadvantage that may preclude him from getting entered.
That further hurdle is that he is not in the VIP program. This means he must manually enter his dog or dogs in the correct stake, then he goes to the next page and must click on the handler info, then he must go to page 3 where he fills out his liability waiver then to page 4 fill out his credit card info, then fill out his full address, then fill out his phone number. While he is doing this the members of the VIP club can enter as many dogs as they want with a click of a button.
May sound like it isn't all that big of a difference, but these test fill up in minutes; it has blocked many people, myself included, and I had a heads up on when the test was going to open


----------



## Jerry Beil

So are you all saying it's not possible to increase the supply of entry slots? It seems crazy to me that the discussions on this center around how to decide who gets the limited slots available instead of figuring out a way to make more slots available.

Clubs should raise the prices for MH tests until they start not filling up - club makes more money - demand for the slots goes down until equilibrium is reached. As it is, the clubs are selling the master hunter slots for less than they could. Who benefits from that? Clubs ought to maximize their profits - if they were making more money to put on a test, they might decide to have more tests and put more work into the tests.


----------



## careljo

I've written to propose a truly blind draw for all limit entry tests. AKC and MNRC have my proposal with clarifications. They promised to discuss it at AKC's meeting in February. I've been closed out of 3 of 4 tests in my local area this winter. Trying to get that elusive MH title on my Standard Poodle but it's really hard when you don't even get to try. Still love training and the time I spend with my dog, but frustration will drive us from even caring about AKC HTs if something doesn't change. I do think that EE's VIP program is inherently unfair to those who are not in the program. I logged into one test last week that showed one opening and by the time I entered by CC information and hit the send button, it was already full again.


----------



## Jerry Beil

mjh345 said:


> Glen, I'm sure David is happy to have you carry his water. However your question is a hypothetical that has parameters that don't exist in our present system.
> In our present system Joe newbie doesn't have the contacts that allow him insider info as to the opening times of events. So in your hypothetical; part b)... he must sit at his computer for days at a time and hope to get lucky and randomly refresh his computer at the precise time that the event opens. If he bucks those long odds & gets lucky and hits the time exactly then he is still at a disadvantage that may preclude him from getting entered.
> That further hurdle is that he is not in the VIP program. This means he must manually enter his dog or dogs in the correct stake, then he goes to the next page and must click on the handler info, then he must go to page 3 where he fills out his liability waiver then to page 4 fill out his credit card info, then fill out his full address, then fill out his phone number. While he is doing this the members of the VIP club can enter as many dogs as they want with a click of a button.
> May sound like it isn't all that big of a difference, but these test fill up in minutes; it has blocked many people, myself included, and I had a heads up on when the test was going to open


1. Joe newbie is probably not trying to enter his dog in a MH test. Since he's just starting out, he is probably in JH or SH, and lucky for him, no problem getting entered for either of those.
2. If Joe newbie has trained his dog to MH level on his own and has no contacts, then he hasn't joined a club. If Joe newbie joined a club and was active in a club, it would take no time at all until he had contacts. I don't think there's a retriever club in America that is turning down help running hunt tests - if you want contacts in the retriever world, getting involved by helping at tests etc. This is much more effective than by running your dog in a test. Both is actually the best way... If you want more opportunities to run dogs in MH tests, then join a club, start a club, get involved, offer your land, help find land, help maintain land.


----------



## Migillicutty

Jerry Beil said:


> 1. Joe newbie is probably not trying to enter his dog in a MH test. Since he's just starting out, he is probably in JH or SH, and lucky for him, no problem getting entered for either of those.
> 2. If Joe newbie has trained his dog to MH level on his own and has no contacts, then he hasn't joined a club. If Joe newbie joined a club and was active in a club, it would take no time at all until he had contacts. I don't think there's a retriever club in America that is turning down help running hunt tests - if you want contacts in the retriever world, getting involved by helping at tests etc. This is much more effective than by running your dog in a test. Both is actually the best way... If you want more opportunities to run dogs in MH tests, then join a club, start a club, get involved, offer your land, help find land, help maintain land.


Or just put your dog on a pros truck, cut a check and don't worry about it. 

I find these do more work so you can run your one or two dog(s) in a hunt test laughable. So what I need to do on top of family priorities, a full time job, training my dog on average an hour a day, serving my church, keeping up with networking events for my career, hunting and helping maintain hunting property, working out so I don't become obese like most of the nation, keeping up with things around the house...the list goes on and on, is make sure I'm volunteering at the hunt test so i might get a slot and provide even more slots for the pros to fill up tests in 10 minutes rather than 5? I need to do this because I actually like working with my dog and not sending him off to a pro. 

Look im all about helping out and I am a member of a club. I will help when I can, but this completely misses the point of the flawed system and is not a solution. I am also not anti-pro. We need pros and we need them running tests. 

Btw, the first time I ever stepped to the line was in a MH test. It was a pass and no my dog was not and has never been with a pro.


----------



## Migillicutty

wojo said:


> The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
> so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


Excellent letter. It was well written, thought out and had a valid basis for your objection. Thanks for writing it and I am sure many will be curious to hear what the response is, should you get one.


----------



## Thomas D

That seems to be the standard answer....offer to help. It might to a point but a 60 dog master only needs so much help. If a 100 person club puts on that 60 dog master. People who have offered to work and belong to the club are still getting shut out. It's not until you're in that position that you really understand how it feels to have to sit and watch EE all day waiting for a scratch. I would guess most of the people who could help solve this problem have never had to worry about limits.


----------



## Bubba

wojo said:


> The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
> so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


Right on!!!! It's time we take our game back.

Volunteer regards

Bubba


----------



## Thomas D

Like everything in life, The HT game IS political. Anything from entries to the judges you run under are subject to manipulation. So if a club has its own entry system how do people know when it opens?


----------



## Black Duck Dog

Just a thought. would a pro and amateur division work


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 said:


> Glen, I'm sure David is happy to have you carry his water. However your question is a hypothetical that has parameters that don't exist in our present system.
> In our present system Joe newbie doesn't have the contacts that allow him insider info as to the opening times of events. So in your hypothetical; part b)... he must sit at his computer for days at a time and hope to get lucky and randomly refresh his computer at the precise time that the event opens. If he bucks those long odds & gets lucky and hits the time exactly then he is still at a disadvantage that may preclude him from getting entered.
> That further hurdle is that he is not in the VIP program. This means he must manually enter his dog or dogs in the correct stake, then he goes to the next page and must click on the handler info, then he must go to page 3 where he fills out his liability waiver then to page 4 fill out his credit card info, then fill out his full address, then fill out his phone number. While he is doing this the members of the VIP club can enter as many dogs as they want with a click of a button.
> May sound like it isn't all that big of a difference, but these test fill up in minutes; it has blocked many people, myself included, and I had a heads up on when the test was going to open


And with all of those hurdles, he still has a better chance by going through EE. 

You know how the good ole boy system works. You'll have 15-20 active members at 5 clubs at least 1 pro with twenty clients. If club A members don't get in club B's test, then they'll not let club B members in theirs. And so on. 

I ran Master tests last Spring. I was closed out of most but got in by watching for scratches near the closing date. Not difficult to do with only 1 or 2 dogs to enter. None the less, I got my title and got out. May or may not run another but won't with a dog that's already MH.

For you new bloods getting down on the whole deal because of the limited entries, come run the field trials. It's all just dogs picking up birds and if you want the competition, just remember field trials are the only AKC competitive retriever game out there.


----------



## wojo

Tom Give THRC a chance. Good luck my friend


----------



## Thomas D

captainjack said:


> So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered.
> 
> So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...
> 
> 1. Accept an unlimited number of entries.
> 
> 2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots
> 
> 
> 3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in.
> 
> There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't be more simple or fair.
> 
> Make it happen TRC.


From what I understand it won't be a paper entry. But what do I know. I'm just a member.


----------



## T. Mac

wojo said:


> The two letters were mailed on December 15. Still waiting for a response. There will those that agree and those that will not ,
> so be it. I will not respond ,but I will continue the fight for equality.


thank you!!


----------



## Dave Flint

*


Jerry Beil said:



Clubs should raise the prices for MH tests until they start not filling up

Click to expand...

*


Jerry Beil said:


> - club makes more money - demand for the slots goes down until equilibrium is reached. As it is, the clubs are selling the master hunter slots for less than they could. Who benefits from that? Clubs ought to maximize their profits - if they were making more money to put on a test, they might decide to have more tests and put more work into the tests.


This seems like the most intelligent option to me. Economics 101 folks, if there is more demand than supply, raise the price until demand drops or someone steps up to increase supply.


----------



## T. Mac

captainjack said:


> mjh345 let's suppose that this test had paper (snail mail) entries. The club secretary opens the mail box to find your entry form and 200 other entries. Are you or the "new blood with no contacts" better off?
> How about when you get your entry form and check returned a week after the close because you didn't get in? Better or worse not knowing if you are in or out until you get your check back?


Why would he have gotten his entry form back...There were no limits before EE!! All entries received before closing time had to be accepted. If there were snail mail entries now, secretaries would reject all entries without payment included.


----------



## Jerry Beil

Migillicutty said:


> Or just put your dog on a pros truck, cut a check and don't worry about it.
> 
> I find these do more work so you can run your one or two dog(s) in a hunt test laughable. So what I need to do on top of family priorities, a full time job, training my dog on average an hour a day, serving my church, keeping up with networking events for my career, hunting and helping maintain hunting property, working out so I don't become obese like most of the nation, keeping up with things around the house...the list goes on and on, is make sure I'm volunteering at the hunt test so i might get a slot and provide even more slots for the pros to fill up tests in 10 minutes rather than 5? I need to do this because I actually like working with my dog and not sending him off to a pro.
> 
> Look im all about helping out and I am a member of a club. I will help when I can, but this completely misses the point of the flawed system and is not a solution. I am also not anti-pro. We need pros and we need them running tests.
> 
> Btw, the first time I ever stepped to the line was in a MH test. It was a pass and no my dog was not and has never been with a pro.


The flaw in the system is that demand is outstripping supply. There are 2 approaches - first, try to figure out how to decide who gets in and who doesn't as fairly as possible. The other is to increase supply by either creating more hunt tests, or by having fewer limited tests. The reasons folks are giving for not doing the second is because there's not enough help, or there's not enough grounds. I'm not suggesting that it's fair the way it is, or that it's not frustrating when you don't get in, or even it's frustrating to have to sign up so far in advance to get a slot etc. I'm suggesting that the solution to not having enough pie is to make more pie, not devise systems to decide who doesn't get a piece.


----------



## Jerry Beil

T. Mac said:


> Why would he have gotten his entry form back...There were no limits before EE!! All entries received before closing time had to be accepted. If there were snail mail entries now, secretaries would reject all entries without payment included.


The limits aren't because of entry express though - they're because clubs can't put on that big of a test for a number of reasons. What would happen now?


----------



## amm

Where were all you guys last week when Cape Fear had a total of 57 dogs that ran in two Master flights? We were ready to go with three flights of 90 dogs but with scratches and no-shows - 57 dogs went to line. I know it was cold, but isn't it duck season?


----------



## captainjack

T. Mac said:


> Why would he have gotten his entry form back...There were no limits before EE!! All entries received before closing time had to be accepted. If there were snail mail entries now, secretaries would reject all entries without payment included.


You're a little behind the curve on the topic. EE was around for years before limited entries and all entries through EE were accepted. The clubs requested limited entry tests because they were having to split tests and pay additional judges expenses. This was a headache to get judges on short notice, extra semi-variable expenses for the judges that couldn't be covered by the few entries over the split number, and limited grounds. 

If you ran AKC hunt tests before EE, think how a hunt test secretary would have handled excess entries if the tests had limited entries as they now do.


----------



## Thomas D

.....or you could go back to unlimited entries. The large clubs would continue and small clubs woul fold. I would much rather drive 8 hours to a test I know I will get in than deal with what's going on now.


----------



## Topsail

Lumber River No limit only 139 master entries. Cape Fear no limit only 80 master entries and 17 of those scratched after the close. Looks to me like if you don't limit the entries there is no problem, but then there wouldn't be anything to fuss about.


----------



## BJGatley

Then the question becomes why…Is it more of self-interests or do we need more? Just saying.


----------



## Topsail

Lumber River no limit only 139 master entries. Cape Fear no limit only 80 master entries. Looks to me like if ya'll don't limit the entries there are not any problems. But I guess then there would not be anything to fuss about on here.


----------



## Migillicutty

Jerry Beil said:


> The flaw in the system is that demand is outstripping supply. There are 2 approaches - first, try to figure out how to decide who gets in and who doesn't as fairly as possible. The other is to increase supply by either creating more hunt tests, or by having fewer limited tests. The reasons folks are giving for not doing the second is because there's not enough help, or there's not enough grounds. I'm not suggesting that it's fair the way it is, or that it's not frustrating when you don't get in, or even it's frustrating to have to sign up so far in advance to get a slot etc. I'm suggesting that the solution to not having enough pie is to make more pie, not devise systems to decide who doesn't get a piece.


While I don't disagree with the supply and demand argument, as it is obvious demand is much higher than supply, I don't think this is a feasible solution. Put on 10 more HT's in the Tx region a spring and they would all still be full. More problematic they would all still be filled with handlers running 15 plus dogs and in just minutes after the entries open.


----------



## djansma

I don't know if there is a way to put the genie back in the bottle 
but it sure would be nice to get in some master tests 
the only way I can think of is going back to the old ways
and yes there were plenty of times I was finding judges on short notice
been there done that but it worked
David Jansma


----------



## John Gassner

EE is biased towards the pro and that is a no-no with the AKC. 

Wojo, they are licensed, not sanctioned events. I Hope this doesn't hurt your letter's impact with the AKC.

Mjh was playing the game before EE was born.

I don't think that a club taking over entries can limit how many entries anyone can enter.

I think that when entries are limited, then an exact opening time and date should be public and mandatory.

I think that waiting lists should be allowed.

Be careful what you ask for. Remember those that asked for limited entries? I still think it's a valid option for some clubs. If you limit anything such as pros or already title dogs, then don't cry when your entries are low and your club loses money.

John


----------



## Topsail

So let me get this right. If the clubs are limiting entries then they don't have the land or the help. Well how can they have a double master then. Looks like AKC would have a problem with that.


----------



## captainjack

djansma said:


> I don't know if there is a way to put the genie back in the bottle
> but it sure would be nice to get in some master tests
> the only way I can think of is going back to the old ways
> and yes there were plenty of times I was finding judges on short notice
> been there done that but it worked
> David Jansma


It is always the clubs decision whether or not to limit entries. I know Black Warrior did this (no-limit) last year and it was much appreciated by the handlers.


----------



## T. Mac

captainjack said:


> You're a little behind the curve on the topic. EE was around for years before limited entries and all entries through EE were accepted. The clubs requested limited entry tests because they were having to split tests and pay additional judges expenses. This was a headache to get judges on short notice, extra semi-variable expenses for the judges that couldn't be covered by the few entries over the split number, and limited grounds.
> 
> If you ran AKC hunt tests before EE, think how a hunt test secretary would have handled excess entries if the tests had limited entries as they now do.


Glen,

Was around and did secretary many events many years prior to EE. Remember having people on my doorstep minutes before close with entry in hand. And bulk of entries arriving FEDEX and UPS (mostly from pros) the day of close.

Not saying that there wouldn't be some method of limiting entries as that is the reasoning of a limited entry. If secretary now, like then, all entries without enclosed fees would be discarded. This would prevent something like EE's vip program where fees need not be paid until date of event. Making a pro come up with the $1500+ per test in fees 4 + weeks in advance might cause a decline in entries. 

Similar to Wojo, my complaint is about the fairness in the process. Other performance events require the clubs post the opening date/time of their event. Make that a requirement for hunt tests as well so there is no implications that unfair advantage has been given to anybody. Have EE prohibit early entries until such posted entry time is reached. Have seen a couple "not finalized" events that have already had entries. Make the entry process/requirements equal for all. No delayed fees for select individuals; no special entry mechanics. Everybody must enter the same way with the same requirements.

If that is done and everyone has a fair shot of entry, I think most of the complaints about the process would end.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> And with all of those hurdles, he still has a better chance by going through EE. Repeating a wrong doesn't make it any less wrong. I have pointed out 2 cases of inherent unfairness. First there is the FACT that in many cases a limited few people are getting tipped off to the opening date and times the tests will open on EE for entry. This info is not given to everyone: which virtually reduces their chance of getting entered to 0%, due to the fact that these tests can be filled in a few minutes. Secondly there is a VIP service that only a few are able to avail themselves of that gives unfair advantages to the VIP users to enter multiple dogs in a single click. Frequently the test is filled by the time the non VIP users can navigate the 4 pages and enter the info they are required to enter that the VIP users don't have to navigate These VIP members also don't have to pay with their credit card at the time of entry. The fact that there are no credit card fees deducted from their entry fees could leave a financial incentive to prefer getting their entries over the non VIP entries. Now Glen in lieu of these factors please objectively explain to me how "he still has a better chance by going through EE"
> 
> You know how the good ole boy system works. You'll have 15-20 active members at 5 clubs at least 1 pro with twenty clients. If club A members don't get in club B's test, then they'll not let club B members in theirs. And so on.So is it your position that the good old boy system is what we should strive for & is the fairest method?
> 
> I ran Master tests last Spring. I was closed out of most but got in by watching for scratches near the closing date. Not difficult to do with only 1 or 2 dogs to enter. None the less, I got my title and got out. May or may not run another but won't with a dog that's already MH. So happy it worked for you. Sit back and relax and have a big old glass of David's Kool Aid.
> 
> For you new bloods getting down on the whole deal because of the limited entries, come run the field trials. It's all just dogs picking up birds and if you want the competition, just remember field trials are the only AKC competitive retriever game out there.FT's are an option that I also like to dabble in. That doesn't mean that everyone should just because you and I do. Besides,HT's were created to give the Amateur a place to test his dog against a standard.You just got done saying in the previous paragraph that you yourself run MH Tests.


My responses in red


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 said:


> My responses in red


Mark, if I posted that the sky was blue, would you respond with, "so, are you suggesting that the sky is green?" To the contrary, and I'm sure that you actually understand what I've written and know my position, I'm telling you flat out and in no uncertain terms that EE is much more fair than any hunt test secretary or group of club members sorting through entries deciding who gets in and who doesn't. You are complaining that hunt test secretaries and club officers are tipping off their buddies and not telling you about opening times in EE. Well if they won't tell you about openings on EE, do you really think they won't toss your entry in the return-to-sender pile and put those same people they "tipped off" in ahead of you? And it won't matter whether an entry fee is in their buddy's envelope or not. 

Read post #41. You and others aren't interested in what's fair, nor are any of you interested in the "new blood". Are you willing to host a test and throw your dogs' names into a hat with 299 others and do a true, blind draw where every dog has a equal chance of making the 240 dog field? I really doubt it.


----------



## suepuff

Bring the drawing on. But I still think the MN qualifications are driving the demand. Someone posted the numbers of MH titled dogs entered in a test earlier. It was crazy how many non MH were entered. 

Go back to limiting the number of tests to qual. You have to pass 5 out of six consecutive tests entered. Not run a unlimited time to get 5 or 6 passes. If you're dog can run to standard 5 out of 6 times and qual should they be running in the MN? To me, MN should be the best of the best. 

Sure some are going to keep running their master dog because it's fun, but it should reduce pressure.


----------



## paul young

Topsail said:


> Lumber River no limit only 139 master entries. Cape Fear no limit only 80 master entries. Looks to me like if ya'll HAVE LOT'S OF GROUNDS AND HELP there are not any problems.


Fixed it for ya.......


----------



## Margo Ellis

I like the random draw idea. It gives everyone a fighting chance.


----------



## Good Dogs

Topsail said:


> Lumber River No limit only 139 master entries. Cape Fear no limit only 80 master entries and 17 of those scratched after the close. Looks to me like if you don't limit the entries there is no problem, but then there wouldn't be anything to fuss about.


NETN last year, 27 entries in a 60 limit and 70 in a 90. TCRC 96 entries in the fall and 104 in 2 weeks, both 120 capacity.


----------



## Dave Kress

I 'm as put out about this entry business as all of you. The subject has been beat to death 
If you have the time and energy to hit the keyboard here do a bit more and copy your thoughts and email, mail this to your RHTAC and the Performance group at the Akc. 
Doug Lundguen and jerry Mann 

Suggestions have been made via the RHTAC and publicized. I don't know any action and or any response that had been made / do you. 

Be careful what you ask for as I 'm told we asked for limited entries yet the clubs I'm involved with BWRC, Narc and Montgomery didn't get asked. 
Finally if changes do occur EE being a private organization that exist for us and they don't make money - well who's going to pay for the changes or rather are you willing to pay more for your entry 
Just me and quiet after this 
Dk


----------



## golfandhunter

When I got into this game 6 years ago, I got a dog to train for hunting.
Placed the dog with Jerry Day for basic training. I started going on weekends to learn to handle the dog.
I began to become interested in HRC hunt tests as Jerry was running quite a few of them. I love competition, 
so I entered a started test. We passed, but it was not pretty, I quickly realized this was not a competition (imo).
Soon thereafter, I went to watch a Derby and Jerry won, I was immediately hooked and never ran another hunt test.

I am not knocking hunt tests, but would much rather spend my cash (same money as a hunt test, entry fee, travel, motel etc.)
trying to get one of four placements or a jam in field trials. Also, you can run Amateur, the only stake that pro's are not allowed in besides the OH Qual.
There are no hassles with entry and planning to attend the event. Why don't you hunt test folks give the field trial game a try? The white coat crowd,
contrary to what many say are welcoming and always willing to help the new guy or gal. Of course there are some ass wipes, but you encounter them
in anything you do. Yes, there will be many tough weekends, but when you finish a trial stake, the feeling is better than SEX and you will want it more and more!!!
After six years, me and my boy Sniper won a Qual in Oct. 2014, he was 2 years 9 months old. I am still flying in the clouds and have more want to compete 
and win than ever before in my life...

You may notice I have a dog in my signature that has a MH title. I co own this dog with CaptainJack.
Glen, ran her in master to get a title before she was bred to NFC Prize. She is currently running trials now and is QA2 thanks to Glen.

Give Trials a chance, this would maybe take some pressure of the Master and bolster the fledgling Field Trial game. BALANCE


----------



## SWIPER

Simple answers, ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm CST, No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs. If a test opens and closes in 15 mins. everyone had the same chance to enter. Move to the next test.


----------



## John Gassner

golfandhunter said:


> When I got into this game 6 years ago, I got a dog to train for hunting.
> Placed the dog with Jerry Day for basic training. I started going on weekends to learn to handle the dog.
> I began to become interested in HRC hunt tests as Jerry was running quite a few of them. I love competition,
> so I entered a started test. We passed, but it was not pretty, I quickly realized this was not a competition (imo).
> Soon thereafter, I went to watch a Derby and Jerry won, I was immediately hooked and never ran another hunt test.
> 
> I am not knocking hunt tests, but would much rather spend my cash (same money as a hunt test, entry fee, travel, motel etc.)
> trying to get one of four placements or a jam in field trials. Also, you can run Amateur, the only stake that pro's are not allowed in besides the OH Qual.
> There are no hassles with entry and planning to attend the event. Why don't you hunt test folks give the field trial game a try? The white coat crowd,
> contrary to what many say are welcoming and always willing to help the new guy or gal. Of course there are some ass wipes, but you encounter them
> in anything you do. Yes, there will be many tough weekends, but when you finish a trial stake, the feeling is better than SEX and you will want it more and more!!!
> After six years, me and my boy Sniper won a Qual in Oct. 2014, he was 2 years 9 months old. I am still flying in the clouds and have more want to compete
> and win than ever before in my life...
> 
> You may notice I have a dog in my signature that has a MH title. I co own this dog with CaptainJack.
> Glen, ran her in master to get a title before she was bred to NFC Prize. She is currently running trials now and is QA2 thanks to Glen.s
> 
> Give Trials a chance, this would maybe take some pressure of the Master and bolster the fledgling Field Trial game. BALANCE


Just to clarify, pros can run OH Quals, IF they own the dog. Even co-own.

John


----------



## golfandhunter

John Gassner said:


> Just to clarify, pros can run OH Quals, IF they own the dog. Even co-own.
> 
> John


You are correct John, the point was and is that in trials there are more chances to run against your peers and not pro's


----------



## Rainmaker

Gregg, O/H Quals are open to pros if they own/co-own the dog. And, no one should have to leave AKC HT because they can't get in a MH, pretty much defeats the whole point of HT. I do enjoy FT more than HT these days. But, that is beside the point. No one should be forced to leave the venue they like because they can't even get in when there is a "supposedly open entry system" in place. 

Some clubs needed to limit entries or not be able to put on tests anymore. That was a good change. NO CLUB is required to use a Limited Entry. But there needs to be some tweaking of entering, now that we know the fall out. I like Swiper's suggestion. Just make the entry process more level for everyone, period. Everyone enters their own dogs, everyone pays at the same time, the day and time of entry is public knowledge. Ready, set, go. Just like shopping on Black Friday. ;-)


----------



## golfandhunter

Rainmaker said:


> Gregg, O/H Quals are open to pros if they own/co-own the dog. And, no one should have to leave AKC HT because they can't get in a MH, pretty much defeats the whole point of HT. I do enjoy FT more than HT these days. But, that is beside the point. No one should be forced to leave the venue they like because they can't even get in when there is a "supposedly open entry system" in place.
> 
> Some clubs needed to limit entries or not be able to put on tests anymore. That was a good change. NO CLUB is required to use a Limited Entry. But there needs to be some tweaking of entering, now that we know the fall out. I like Swiper's suggestion. Just make the entry process more level for everyone, period. Everyone enters their own dogs, everyone pays at the same time, the day and time of entry is public knowledge. Ready, set, go. Just like shopping on Black Friday. ;-)



Kim, I was not saying they should leave the hunt test game. Just saying give the trial circuit a try and they might find they like as you do!


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> Mark, if I posted that the sky was blue, would you respond with, "so, are you suggesting that the sky is green?" To the contrary, and I'm sure that you actually understand what I've written and know my position, I'm telling you flat out and in no uncertain terms that EE is much more fair than any hunt test secretary or group of club members sorting through entries deciding who gets in and who doesn't. You are complaining that hunt test secretaries and club officers are tipping off their buddies and not telling you about opening times in EE. Well if they won't tell you about openings on EE, do you really think they won't toss your entry in the return-to-sender pile and put those same people they "tipped off" in ahead of you? And it won't matter whether an entry fee is in their buddy's envelope or not.
> 
> Read post #41. You and others aren't interested in what's fair, nor are any of you interested in the "new blood". Are you willing to host a test and throw your dogs' names into a hat with 299 others and do a true, blind draw where every dog has a equal chance of making the 240 dog field? I really doubt it.


Glen you aren't that obtuse. Your friendship with David may be clouding your ability to see facts. What you fail to see is that I'm not opposed to EE. Quite the contrary, I love the concept of it. My first FC-AFC dog was in the seventies, so I have much experience with the old way. EE was a life saver, and huge boon to FT secretaries and clubs. However there is an inherent unfairness in the VIP program which needs to be rectified.

Here is your precious post 41 that I haven't responded to because it is so obviously a better option than what Joe newcomer is stuck with now


So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered. 

So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...

1. Accept an unlimited number of entries. 

2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots.

3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in. 

There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't be more simple or fair. 

Make it happen TRC.

In your post 41 solution Joe newcomer { AND EVERYBODY!!!!} has an equal chance of getting entered/ 240/300 = 80%

With the two inherent unfairness factors Joe newcomer deals with now his chances dwindle towards 0%

Inequity #1; If the test opens and fills before he even knows about it then his chances are in fact 0%

Inequity #2 If he manages to be online at the time the test opens, but is not a VIP member then by the time he enters his info most of if not all of the slots could be taken by VIP members who can enter as many dogs as they like instantaneously

So tell me Glen what is a fairer option for all, and a better option for Joe Newcomer the 80% chance your post 41 gives everybody or the present situation where some EE VIP's have a 100% chance of entering as many as they like, which leaves Joes chances at or near 0%


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN

Enter NAHRA they are dying for bodies from what I can tell


----------



## Thomas D

No one said it was a paper entry test or that there was a 4 dog limit. 
If it were a paper draw wouldn't a person with 4 dogs in the hat have 4 times better chance of getting one dog in than the guy with one dog?

Tallahassee has a website that explains what details are fact. Everything else is pure rumor.


----------



## Jared McComis

1) Limit the number of dogs per handler or the open draw system outlined in a prior post. Once the pros aren't able to enter their entire truck they will be looking for other opportunities.
2) Have unlimited entry test during the week and charge accordingly. This means paying the help and not relying on volunteers. This is an expense that the pros pass onto the owner's anyway.


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 said:


> ...
> What you fail to see is that I'm not opposed to EE. Quite the contrary, I love the concept of it. My first FC-AFC dog was in the seventies, so I have much experience with the old way. EE was a life saver, and huge boon to FT secretaries and clubs. However there is an inherent unfairness in the VIP program which needs to be rectified.
> 
> In your post 41 solution Joe newcomer { AND EVERYBODY!!!!} has an equal chance of getting entered/ 240/300 = 80%
> ...


Now you're starting to get it. 

I love the convenience of using EE also. I started out running HRC tests and as an owner/handler what a PITA that was to fill out those forms and mail in my entries. 

The problem with all of the complaining about how you enter a test is that the mode of entry doesn't solve the problem of too many entries for too few slots. Nor does it solve the problem, perceived or real, of inequity). To suggest that a club hunt test secretary picking and choosing who gets past the velvet rope is more fair than the current EE system with VIP is laughable. The HTS picking and choosing who gets in may benefit you and the others complaining, but that doesn't make it more fair. 

There are three solutions- 1) increase supply, 2) decrease demand (I really like Sue's 5/6 rule change proposal for that), or 3) accept everyone's entry up to the close and have a blind draw for the slots (would require a rule change I'm sure).


----------



## Dan Wegner

I used to run AKC Hunt Tests. Even qualified for, ran and passed Master Nationals. Began dabbling in Field Trials several years ago and really enjoy training to a higher level. Last year, as I sat in front of my computer at midnight waiting for entries to open for a test 4 months out, it hit me how stupid this was and how I was feeding the problem. I had learned about the clandestine opening through a highly secret network of individuals. The same kind of network that caused me not to get into several other tests. When did this game become about who you know rather than what your dog and you can do as a team??? In that moment, I realized that I no longer wanted to be a part of a game that had sunk to that level of underhandedness and unsportsmanlike conduct. I withdrew my dogs from 5 tests we were entered in and decided to focus solely on field trials. I couldn't be happier today. Had a fair amount of success this past year in both minor and major stakes and never once had to worry about getting into a trial at the last minute.

The problems folks are having with Master entries are not part of some secret conspiracy on the part of AKC, EE or the MNRC, but rather a convergence of policy changes that have inadvertently resulted in a huge mess and is the cause for many to be disenchanted and in some cases, like mine, to leave the game. EE created the VIP program as a way to help high volume handlers enter tests easily. It was never intended to have the negative impact on small volume handlers that is seen today. Yes, it's time to make a change to that policy, but going back to a paer entry system is not the direction any of us want to go.

All the proposals regarding random draws, workers getting in first, limiting number of dogs per handler, etc. only address symptoms of the real problem. Although they may provide some temproary relief and level the playing field in the near future, they will not resolve the issue long term.

Supply and demand are out of balance. That is a fact. However, those saying that participation is growing and we need to grow supply as well, are off the mark. Clubs petitioned AKC for the option to limit entries for good reason. Not all clubs have the grounds or manpower to put on multiple Master stakes. Like it or not, that is a fact. How is incresing the limit of Master tests a club can put on from 4 to 6 in a calendar year going to help when many clubs are already struggling to put on one or two tests? Supply is relatively fixed. The REAL problem is demand. *Master entries have steadily increased due to the annual re-qualification requirements for the Master National.* When it was 5 of 7, we didn't have this issue. Only after it was changed to 6 in total (regardless of how many tests you run) and clubs were allowed to limit entries, did we start to see tests filling quickly and workers getting shut out.

The MNRC has it's own issues in trying to control the high number of qualified dogs entering the Master National each year. That is why they put out the survey with options to better manage that number. Unfortunately, none of those proposals have anything to do with the problem we are seeing in weekend hunt tests. The MNRC doesn't seem to be too concerned about it either. Their numbers are still up and that's enough for them to deal with. The problem is their qualification process relies on weekend hunt tests put on by member clubs. Clubs are happy that their tests fill and they are able to break even or make a profit. So neither the MNRC or member clubs have an issue with "Average Joe" getting shut out of multiple tests/year. Unfortunately, old timers will get tired of pulling all the weight and newcomers will begin to disappear if this continues and nobody will be left to host or work the tests in the future.

I honestly believe that *demand is being "artificially inflated" by the MNRC annual re-qualification requirements*, and until that changes, every other proposed solution will be nothing but a band-aid and will not have a lasting effect.


----------



## captainjack

Thomas D said:


> No one said it was a paper entry test or that there was a 4 dog limit.
> If it were a paper draw wouldn't a person with 4 dogs in the hat have 4 times better chance of getting one dog in than the guy with one dog?
> 
> Tallahassee has a website that explains what details are fact. Everything else is pure rumor.


As long as it doesn't violate the AKC rules...

Someone will surely lodge a formal complaint if it does.;-)


----------



## SWIPER

Simple answers, ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm CST, No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs. If a test opens and closes in 15 mins. everyone had the same chance to enter. Move to the next test.


----------



## captainjack

What about the folks that have slow or no internet connections, or the folks like me who were born before 1970 and may be technologically impaired, or the folks in California still stuck in traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway at 8:00 central time? ;-)


----------



## Tom. P.

golfandhunter said:


> When I got into this game 6 years ago, I got a dog to train for hunting.
> Placed the dog with Jerry Day for basic training. I started going on weekends to learn to handle the dog.
> I began to become interested in HRC hunt tests as Jerry was running quite a few of them. I love competition,
> so I entered a started test. We passed, but it was not pretty, I quickly realized this was not a competition (imo).
> Soon thereafter, I went to watch a Derby and Jerry won, I was immediately hooked and never ran another hunt test.
> 
> I am not knocking hunt tests, but would much rather spend my cash (same money as a hunt test, entry fee, travel, motel etc.)
> trying to get one of four placements or a jam in field trials. Also, you can run Amateur, the only stake that pro's are not allowed in besides the OH Qual.
> There are no hassles with entry and planning to attend the event. Why don't you hunt test folks give the field trial game a try? The white coat crowd,
> contrary to what many say are welcoming and always willing to help the new guy or gal. Of course there are some ass wipes, but you encounter them
> in anything you do. Yes, there will be many tough weekends, but when you finish a trial stake, the feeling is better than SEX and you will want it more and more!!!
> After six years, me and my boy Sniper won a Qual in Oct. 2014, he was 2 years 9 months old. I am still flying in the clouds and have more want to compete
> and win than ever before in my life...
> 
> You may notice I have a dog in my signature that has a MH title. I co own this dog with CaptainJack.
> Glen, ran her in master to get a title before she was bred to NFC Prize. She is currently running trials now and is QA2 thanks to Glen.
> 
> Give Trials a chance, this would maybe take some pressure of the Master and bolster the fledgling Field Trial game. BALANCE


Wow! Better than Sex!!!??. Maybe im still to young to relate to that reply. And you don't need a little blue pill to enter!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

I'm not really sure AKC is the Problem they offer a venue that people like, they allow clubs to limit to suit their needs, EE is the one offering 1 click shopping to 20+ dogs. The MNH qualification process is what's driving these 20+ dogs to enter these tests. Seems like the clubs need to take control, of their entries; just as they took control of their # of flight. It's their event, they should be able to state 4-10-12 dogs per handler, until such and such date, then remaining slots will be opened until all entries filled. I applaud the club has taken this process into their own hands. EE isn't the only game out there I know Hunt test Secretary's is now offering all three venues including AKC, and they are setup for limiting entries per handler. I don't know if it can transfer over to AKC test, but HRC tests limit entries per handler, website runs on the same software so theoretically a club could use it to do such for their AKC tests.

All I know is I've just started checking tests, for the next season seems most are full until May, and those haven't opened yet. If tests are full and I can't run my dog, I will not be helping at these test. In previous seasons I usually help at every test in my area, regardless if I was running on not. But this is the only form of protest available to me and perhaps available to amateur handlers as a whole. No helpers to organize, run and put on events, no test, or those 20+ handlers can start taking the reins organize, & help run the tests (they're already getting paid for it). Either way is fine


----------



## Breck

What's a Hunt Test?


----------



## JS

Trying to take a little different tack; does anyone believe the MN qualifying requirements could be ramped up a bit? Maybe we don't need to have 900 dogs qualifying to vie for the "Most Elite Hunting Test" title?

I realize this would be a major "moving of the cheese" for the establishments involved and will never happen in my lifetime, BUT. If AKC added another test level, a step up and a more stringent standard ... (as has been debated ad nauseum ages ago) ... and that would be the qualifying test to run the MN.

• Just as a SH titled dog is no longer eligible to run Senior, a MH titled would no longer be eligible to run Master. They would have to move up to the MH(??? ... whatever you want to call it.)

• Clubs would be required, by AKC, to host a regular MH test each year for every MH(???) test that they hosted that year, not necessarily on the same weekend. Clubs would be given some relief in the requirements regarding hosting the lower stakes and more flexibility as needed to work within their manpower & land limitations.

Numerous issues to work out, I know, and would need to be massaged and tweaked as needed. But at some point there needs to be a major overhaul and with dogs getting better and more people chasing after that platter .....

Leave the pros and multiple entries alone. Leave the entry process alone. Just separate those trying to re-qualify from those just wanting a MH title.

I know there are a thousand ways that this would never work. But I believe there may be a few ways it could.

Out of the box, regards.

JS


----------



## Thomas D

Tom. P. said:


> Wow! Better than Sex!!!??. Maybe im still to young to relate to that reply. And you don't need a little blue pill to enter!


The older you get the more you find yourself using that phrase.


----------



## Thomas D

"Just as a SH titled dog is no longer eligible to run Senior,"

Sure they can.


----------



## Gerard Rozas

Field Trials faced this issue too. What we found was that the problem was mainly in the South with dogs wintering with Pros.

A few select areas also had the problem in the summer, but it was not as wide spread as the problem in Jan-March.

Our solutions was to work with other clubs and schedule close conflicting trials. We have also had clubs move dates to after April when the wintering "hoard" leaves.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> Now you're starting to get it.
> 
> I love the convenience of using EE also. I started out running HRC tests and as an owner/handler what a PITA that was to fill out those forms and mail in my entries.
> 
> The problem with all of the complaining about how you enter a test is that the mode of entry doesn't solve the problem of too many entries for too few slots. Nor does it solve the problem, perceived or real, of inequity). To suggest that a club hunt test secretary picking and choosing who gets past the velvet rope is more fair than the current EE system with VIP is laughable. The HTS picking and choosing who gets in may benefit you and the others complaining, but that doesn't make it more fair.
> 
> There are three solutions- 1) increase supply, 2) decrease demand (I really like Sue's 5/6 rule change proposal for that), or 3) accept everyone's entry up to the close and have a blind draw for the slots (would require a rule change I'm sure).


Glen it is you that has yet to get it!!
Tell us why you chose to not respond to the rest of my post.
The subject matter of this thread is fairness. Focus on that
EE is part of that problem. Ask your buddy if he is ready to come out of hiding behind your skirt & be a part of the solution


----------



## JS

Thomas D said:


> "Just as a SH titled dog is no longer eligible to run Senior,"
> 
> Sure they can.


Since when? Maybe I've forgotten, but I thought it used to be, once you got the title you were done. 

AT any rate, you get my concept, right? Make it so they can't. Isn't that the problem ... too many entries of dogs mostly trying to qualify for MN, and Joe can't get a chance to get his MH title.

JS


----------



## Brokengunz

The simple answer is to let anyone enter NO LIMIT. 
Give preference to club members and workers at the event. Fill in the rest from the draw. Theoretical y. Club membership should increase, worker availability should increase, and possibly the amount of entries could increase if the grounds are available.


----------



## Doug Main

Brokengunz said:


> The simple answer is to let anyone enter NO LIMIT.
> Give preference to club members and workers at the event. Fill in the rest from the draw. Theoretical y. Club membership should increase, worker availability should increase, and possibly the amount of entries could increase if the grounds are available.


Yep. That's the AKC agility model. I don't understand why that doesn't gain more support, other than those that are abusing the current system are going to be limited by the random draw.


----------



## Gerard Rozas

I will repeat it one more time - FTs have already faced this with 130 dog opens.

The answer is conflicting tests - within 100-200 miles if you can.


----------



## Doug Main

Gerard Rozas said:


> Field Trials faced this issue too. What we found was that the problem was mainly in the South with dogs wintering with Pros.
> 
> A few select areas also had the problem in the summer, but it was not as wide spread as the problem in Jan-March.
> 
> Our solutions was to work with other clubs and schedule close conflicting trials. We have also had clubs move dates to after April when the wintering "hoard" leaves.


It is similar but not the same. 

With FTs, the Pros really stepped up not only with help putting on trials but through PRTA organizing and putting on their own trials. That hasn't happened with hts yet.


----------



## Losthwy

Hunt'EmUp said:


> All I know is I've just started checking tests, for the next season seems most are full until May, and those haven't opened yet. If tests are full and I can't run my dog, I will not be helping at these test. In previous seasons I usually help at every test in my area, regardless if I was running on not. But this is the only form of protest available to me and perhaps available to amateur handlers as a whole. No helpers to organize, run and put on events, no test, or those 20+ handlers can start taking the reins organize, & help run the tests (they're already getting paid for it). Either way is fine


I couldn't agree more. Working at an event I was not given an equal opportunity to enter I would feel like I was being USED.


----------



## Thomas D

Upon completion of these requirements, an AKC Senior Hunter (SH) certificate will be issued to the owner, and the dog shall be identified as a Senior Hunter in all official AKC records by the suffix title SH, which title shall supersede the Junior Hunter title when the Junior Hunter title has been previously awarded. A dog that has been recorded as a Senior Hunter may continue to enter the Senior Hunting Test, but no further Senior Hunter Certificates will be issued.
Dogs that have acquired a Senior Hunter title at an AKC licensed or member Hunting Test are eligible to enter Junior Hunting Tests.


----------



## paul young

Dan Wegner said:


> I used to run AKC Hunt Tests. Even qualified for, ran and passed Master Nationals. Began dabbling in Field Trials several years ago and really enjoy training to a higher level. Last year, as I sat in front of my computer at midnight waiting for entries to open for a test 4 months out, it hit me how stupid this was and how I was feeding the problem. I had learned about the clandestine opening through a highly secret network of individuals. The same kind of network that caused me not to get into several other tests. When did this game become about who you know rather than what your dog and you can do as a team??? In that moment, I realized that I no longer wanted to be a part of a game that had sunk to that level of underhandedness and unsportsmanlike conduct. I withdrew my dogs from 5 tests we were entered in and decided to focus solely on field trials. I couldn't be happier today. Had a fair amount of success this past year in both minor and major stakes and never once had to worry about getting into a trial at the last minute.
> 
> The problems folks are having with Master entries are not part of some secret conspiracy on the part of AKC, EE or the MNRC, but rather a convergence of policy changes that have inadvertently resulted in a huge mess and is the cause for many to be disenchanted and in some cases, like mine, to leave the game. EE created the VIP program as a way to help high volume handlers enter tests easily. It was never intended to have the negative impact on small volume handlers that is seen today. Yes, it's time to make a change to that policy, but going back to a paer entry system is not the direction any of us want to go.
> 
> All the proposals regarding random draws, workers getting in first, limiting number of dogs per handler, etc. only address symptoms of the real problem. Although they may provide some temproary relief and level the playing field in the near future, they will not resolve the issue long term.
> 
> Supply and demand are out of balance. That is a fact. However, those saying that participation is growing and we need to grow supply as well, are off the mark. Clubs petitioned AKC for the option to limit entries for good reason. Not all clubs have the grounds or manpower to put on multiple Master stakes. Like it or not, that is a fact. How is incresing the limit of Master tests a club can put on from 4 to 6 in a calendar year going to help when many clubs are already struggling to put on one or two tests? Supply is relatively fixed. The REAL problem is demand. *Master entries have steadily increased due to the annual re-qualification requirements for the Master National.* When it was 5 of 7, we didn't have this issue. Only after it was changed to 6 in total (regardless of how many tests you run) and clubs were allowed to limit entries, did we start to see tests filling quickly and workers getting shut out.
> 
> The MNRC has it's own issues in trying to control the high number of qualified dogs entering the Master National each year. That is why they put out the survey with options to better manage that number. Unfortunately, none of those proposals have anything to do with the problem we are seeing in weekend hunt tests. The MNRC doesn't seem to be too concerned about it either. Their numbers are still up and that's enough for them to deal with. The problem is their qualification process relies on weekend hunt tests put on by member clubs. Clubs are happy that their tests fill and they are able to break even or make a profit. So neither the MNRC or member clubs have an issue with "Average Joe" getting shut out of multiple tests/year. Unfortunately, old timers will get tired of pulling all the weight and newcomers will begin to disappear if this continues and nobody will be left to host or work the tests in the future.
> 
> I honestly believe that *demand is being "artificially inflated" by the MNRC annual re-qualification requirements*, and until that changes, every other proposed solution will be nothing but a band-aid and will not have a lasting effect.



Helluva post, Dan! well said!

Make the requirement to qualify for the MN 3 OUT OF 3 and watch the problem evaporate. Also, the dogs at the MN would be a lot closer to being 'the best of the best'.-Paul


----------



## Thomas D

I said long ago go back to 5 of 7 period no 6. But yes, 3 of 3 would solve the MN problem. Would have to think thru the weekend ramifications.


----------



## Pam Spears

paul young said:


> Helluva post, Dan! well said!
> 
> Make the requirement to qualify for the MN 3 OUT OF 3 and watch the problem evaporate. Also, the dogs at the MN would be a lot closer to being 'the best of the best'.-Paul


Yup. And the Master National folks won't be agonizing over how to accommodate 900 dogs because there simply won't be that many qualifiers.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

Dan Wegner said:


> The MNRC has it's own issues in trying to control the high number of qualified dogs entering the Master National each year. That is why they put out the survey with options to better manage that number. Unfortunately, none of those proposals have anything to do with the problem we are seeing in weekend hunt tests. The MNRC doesn't seem to be too concerned about it either. Their numbers are still up and that's enough for them to deal with. The problem is their qualification process relies on weekend hunt tests put on by member clubs. * Clubs are happy that their tests fill and they are able to break even or make a profit. So neither the MNRC or member clubs have an issue with "Average Joe" getting shut out of multiple tests/year. * Unfortunately, old timers will get tired of pulling all the weight and newcomers will begin to disappear if this continues and nobody will be left to host or work the tests in the future.
> 
> I honestly believe that *demand is being "artificially inflated" by the MNRC annual re-qualification requirements*, and until that changes, every other proposed solution will be nothing but a band-aid and will not have a lasting effect.


This is the problem in detail; everyone trying to solve a mess the MNRC created and is not addressing. However I believe the bolded statement is off. Club's are not happy when their working force & club members cannot get in; The clubs were already feeling the pinch when it comes to finding people to work their tests and those that were working them became over taxed (disgruntled workers). Thus the clubs pushed for limits; Making flights manageable for any particular clubs normal work force. Still when that normal work force can't get in, they are back to being in the same position. The club has to run the same event with less workers, putting even more work on those that actually do get in (disgruntled workers). Providing fuel to the Screw this I'm done fire. A club cannot function if it cannot keep it's own membership-workers happy, regardless of whether they break even, or make $$. Trust me most of these clubs are having issue with their "average Joe" worker getting shutout. It will result in clubs petitioning the AKC for another change, or the clubs will limit further; kick the MNRC out; or simply put on less tests. The MNRC may be causing a artificial inflation, but nothing seems to be changing on their end, and it's a real inflation the clubs have to deal with right now; so they will apply more band-aids, to make the problem manageable form their end .

I'm still not sure why the Clubs are opening entries months in advance; This long term opening sure gives 20+ dog handler a good portion of time to plan a road trip to hit a bunch of limited tests, where they can also enter 20+ dogs with one button, and then just decide night of closing, prior to their card getting charged (nah..I'm not going) This also likely having an effect on workers-single handlers getting in. I'm sure I'm not the only member-worker who doesn't schedule; life months in advance; nor the only one who doesn't like to have $80 per test, per dog instantly charged and tied up for months either. If I had to make it a point to schedule that far ahead for a Dog event, I'd likely say the heck with this (wait I'm already there ). If the tests are going to close in 20 mins; seems to me there's no rush to open them until a couple of weeks prior.


----------



## suepuff

JS said:


> Since when? Maybe I've forgotten, but I thought it used to be, once you got the title you were done.
> 
> AT any rate, you get my concept, right? Make it so they can't. Isn't that the problem ... too many entries of dogs mostly trying to qualify for MN, and Joe can't get a chance to get his MH title.
> 
> JS


JS that rule changed ages ago. You can run your dogs at any level at or below their title now. I run my master dogs at senior. Check the rule books.


----------



## Gerard Rozas

Doug,

It is EXACTLY the same problem.

FT faced having 120+ dog opens, mostly pro run dogs on winter trips.
HT face having more than 180 dogs in a single HT on the same weeks.
HT chose to limit entries. 
Because it is a competition, FT could not go that route.

If everyone could enter - just for argument sake - Say you would have 220 master dogs.

If 2 neighboring clubs would schedule the same weekend - each club could run enough flights to handle say 120 dogs.

It is a solution that has worked very well for FTers. When was the last time you hear about 100+ dog open? We used to have them almost every weekend in the spring.


----------



## trog

agree with thread - will offer another perspective - I consider trials and hunt tests to be a "fund raiser" for our club. So members are encouraged to work at event so the club can make money to improve their grounds.
In Wisconsin we are lucky enough to have numerous clubs that own their own grounds, have taxes, insurance, mowing etc charges to pay and the monies earned by volunteer member labor can do a lot to pay for these expenses and keep member dues to a low level for the benefits they receive - With that said I sympathize with those that don't get to enter but is it fair that a pro can come with 30 entries in the master? the senior and junior entries have decreased dramatically does this mean the average trainer that joined by club is being squeezed out? This is from a person that has worked every trial since 1970 except one. have at me and tell me where I am wrong!!!


----------



## Madluke

trog, you are spot on. I too see the declining numbers of junior and senior dogs with less new members. Club limits on entries are a result of less test property, water and workers. Paid help is getting more costly and harder to find. Baby boomers chasing a plate numbers are up but many leave the clubs or become less active, stop mentoring new members and act like pro's training and handling multiple dogs of their own in their ( groups). So you work a test and watch all the plate chasers keep coming to the line and the guy who couldn't enter his own dog in his own clubs test is going to work a station. I don't think so. Clubs will struggle with this as more people say I'd rather hunt my dog than put up with this.


----------



## RookieTrainer

captainjack said:


> Now you're starting to get it.
> 
> I love the convenience of using EE also. I started out running HRC tests and as an owner/handler what a PITA that was to fill out those forms and mail in my entries.
> 
> The problem with all of the complaining about how you enter a test is that the mode of entry doesn't solve the problem of too many entries for too few slots. Nor does it solve the problem, perceived or real, of inequity). To suggest that a club hunt test secretary picking and choosing who gets past the velvet rope is more fair than the current EE system with VIP is laughable. The HTS picking and choosing who gets in may benefit you and the others complaining, but that doesn't make it more fair.
> 
> There are three solutions- 1) increase supply, 2) decrease demand (I really like Sue's 5/6 rule change proposal for that), or 3) accept everyone's entry up to the close and have a blind draw for the slots (would require a rule change I'm sure).


I think several of us think there are two problems here, not just one. And for the record I think EE is a great concept that is in need of a minor adjustment because of changing circumstances. I can only imagine the problems with the old paper entry system.

The first problem currently is, given the set of conditions surrounding entry into Master tests, how do you make it a little more fair for everybody to get in? I think the only way you do that is make the entry process the same for everybody, which means discontinuing the VIP program or allowing it for everybody who wants to sign up. If you either make everybody, pro or amateur, sign up dog by dog and enter the same credit card information, you really have no gripe with the entry system whether you get in or not, because it's the same for everybody. Alternatively, if you allow everybody to do the one-click entry and not get billed until later, then you are at least making it possible for folks to be on a level playing field. And I am not anti-pro; my dog is on a pro's truck right now and has been for about 25% of his life.

I'm really at a loss as to why there would not be a standard time for entries to open for a given period of time before the actual test. Why would we not say that entries for a hunt test open at 6PM 4 weeks before the opening of the test? Or something along those lines. Then you take the inside information out of it, making the playing field even more level.

The second problem is that there is apparently more demand than supply for Master tests, which of course has not one thing to do with EE. I was terrible at Econ, but it seems to me the first thing to do there is raise the price (entry fee) and see if the market can get to equilibrium given the constraints on supply (limited grounds, workers, etc.). Maybe you "pay" your workers with a reduced entry fee.

I am curious as to whether any of the changes to the MN qualification will do anything to substantially affect the numbers unless paired with a rule regarding further entries. For example, if you went to say 3 of 3, and had a rule that once you have failed a test you can't run any more that cycle, maybe that suppresses the numbers, But then how do the handlers with failures get any better since they can't run the tests? And consider a rule that once you have qualified you can't run any additional tests. Do you really want to have a dog qualify in May and not be able to run in an actual test environment again until you show up at the MN?

It will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Todd Caswell

For the people that think increasing the entries will work, do you really think the plate chasers will care what the entries are? These aren't the "average Joe" hunters that want to have fun and run there dog, and it won't matter to them one bit. All it will do is push the people that these were designed for even farther away.


----------



## Cooper

One thing they might do is to have hunts in close proximity the same week end. It's kind of hard to be in two places at the same time. Another I have pondered for sometime is to start another hunt test movement that is neither AKC or UKC affiliated. It doesn't have to be affiliated with any registry organization. If you establish good rules and definite guidelines for each stake, and get good judges, what else is there? The dogs would have to earn there passes not get gifts or it wouldn't mean anything. It might take a little time to catch on but I think it would work out great. Another possible solution would be to stop passing dogs just because they bring in all of the birds. A number of judges want to be popular and be asked to judge often so they pass sub-standard dog work. If the dogs were not given gifts and actually had to earn their passes you might see the number of entries come down. It is disheartening to say the least when one dog earns its championship and another dog doesn't. It cheapens the title and affects the quality of future breedings. I ran into a pro trainer at a Master National that did quite well by passing several dogs. Then I never saw where that handler ever ran any hunt tests after that. A year or so later I ran into that same pro and asked him why he wasn't running hunt tests anymore because he was so successful. His answer was that he got tired of having judges set up hard tests then be scared to judge them. He started running field trials instead and has qualified dogs for the National Open.


----------



## Thomas D

Cooper said:


> One thing they might do is to have hunts in close proximity the same week end. It's kind of hard to be in two places at the same time. Another I have pondered for sometime is to start another hunt test movement that is neither AKC or UKC affiliated. It doesn't have to be affiliated with any registry organization. If you establish good rules and definite guidelines for each stake, and get good judges, what else is there? The dogs would have to earn there passes not get gifts or it wouldn't mean anything. It might take a little time to catch on but I think it would work out great. Another possible solution would be to stop passing dogs just because they bring in all of the birds. A number of judges want to be popular and be asked to judge often so they pass sub-standard dog work. If the dogs were not given gifts and actually had to earn their passes you might see the number of entries come down. It is disheartening to say the least when one dog earns its championship and another dog doesn't. It cheapens the title and affects the quality of future breedings. I ran into a pro trainer at a Master National that did quite well by passing several dogs. Then I never saw where that handler ever ran any hunt tests after that. A year or so later I ran into that same pro and asked him why he wasn't running hunt tests anymore because he was so successful. His answer was that he got tired of having judges set up hard tests then be scared to judge them. He started running field trials instead and has qualified dogs for the National Open.


Just a quick question, do you judge? Was the pro you spoke of a judge?


----------



## torg

Sadie & Ruby said:


> The Rose County test is a prime example of how the existing system will drive away future growth of the program. The MN qualifications are the root of this issue. I know not all dogs names on EE are current with titles so my numbers are probably low, but this particular test has 103 of 181 dogs entered that already have an MH behind their name. I don't want to take away from anyone's reason for running a test but when you have a program to title against a standard and people can't get into it time and time again because the real competition of the day is getting a slot ahead of a dog that has proven that they can meet the defined standard then they are going to find someplace else to go. I personally feel that there should be a period of time where untitled dogs can enter and then after that anyone can enter. I also feel that the test opening dates should be set up similar to the closing dates, say it opens 4 weeks prior to the event on Sunday at 4:00 Pm or something along those lines.
> 
> The hunt test program is a great program for anyone who loves their dogs, and I want to see it grow, unfortunately I fear that the current direction it is headed is going to hurt our future. I also am concerned that the rules and set-ups continue to change for the wrong reasons. The original standards were great to measure a set level of a dog, but we now are changing the standard because we are testing a dog that met the standard as a 2 year old and now he is still running by against the same standard as an 8 year old who obviously has increased his skills and experience over the past 6 years.
> 
> These are just some thoughts of mine, hopefully they spark positive conversation that can result in improvements for everyone. And as a side note my dog is on a pro truck so I support the need for guys like myself who also runs his own dog as well as the pro who runs her when I cant.


You must have been following me around in my rant today. Very well spoken. I have been involved in running and working Hunt test since 2000. Now that my husband and I are retired we want to enjoy going south and running our dogs. We also tried running our one dog in Rose County and of course it had already closed. We have a Senior titled male that we want to get his Master title. A lot of my friends run Master Nationals so this is a very sensitive issue, I believe Master National is destroying the Master title game of the AKC Hunt test. A possible solution would be posting the opening dates on EE for each test, I believe the test should be open a few days for all dogs that have not yet received their Master title BEFORE those dogs that have already obtained their Master title. Any openings available after this window for untitled Master dogs is then opened for other entries. This is never going to end the way the game is played now with dogs needing to requalify every year to run the Master Nationals. Every year the mass of already titled Master Hunter dogs trying to qualify for the Master Nationals are going to fill the available slots and the newcomer or young dog trying to obtain their title is going to be left out of the game. I don't blame pros, they are running a client dog, the 10 plus dogs are still owned by different individuals and it certainly is not Entry Express problem, they have made life much easier for Hunt test secretaries going through paper entries, although I do not agree with the VIP for Pros. We did not have all these problems before Master National. AKC does not seem to be trying to solve the problem and even though Master Nationals knows their is a problem I have not heard of any changes in the future. This game was for a dog to show it's upper level skills to be a MASTER HUNTER and achieve a title, not for Master titled dogs to run year after year to qualify for the MN pushing younger dogs or newcomers out of the game. Linda Torgerson


----------



## 1goodog

*Rookie Rant on EE*

Many of the gripes here are spot on. EE is reminiscent of Ticket Master today: both empowered and made problematic by the net. Example-- James Taylor and Bonnie Raitt are playing at Fenway Park in Boston this summer. 40,000 seats were sold-out in UNDER 10 Mins. I know a good number of early sales seats went to fans and certain Visa card holders.

With pros entering many dogs in each test + "super-amateurs" needing to requal for Master Nationals, its nearly impossible for an amateur with 1 dog to get a slot. Im sure those with the inside skinny from the club holding events do have an unfair advantage. 

How about a rule change where each test must allocate a certain number of spots for dogs run by an amateur? Preferably a dog looking for their first MH title. Joe Pro and super-amateurs get max= X slots. Then a few are open for Joe Amateur to run a not yet MH dog. 

*I know this is about money for pro trainers. Super-amateurs are looking to qual for the Master Natls every year. That should NOT make it impossible for me to run my dog. I'm there for different reasons--proficiency-competition--a connection with my dog. 

The key is my purposes are no less valid than others. EE should be reformed so that inside info isn't helpful. Tests open at random times. Levels the playing field. And opens it up to new players. 
*


----------



## paul young

"AKC does not seem to be trying to solve the problem and even though Master Nationals knows their is a problem I have not heard of any changes in the future." 

From their perspective, there is no problem. They are collecting more fees than ever. - Paul


----------



## Dan Wegner

paul young said:


> "AKC does not seem to be trying to solve the problem and even though Master Nationals knows their is a problem I have not heard of any changes in the future."
> 
> From their perspective, there is no problem. They are collecting more fees than ever. - Paul


Paul, you hit the nail on the head. Similar to the point I made earlier. Neither the AKC, MNRC or member clubs desire to change the status quo. They are all making money and tests are full. Unfortunately, I fear that continuing down this road will lead to the ultimate demise of hunt tests. But for now, all the organization's with the ability to change the status quo have no incentive to do so.


----------



## sapitrucha

badbullgator said:


> There is a very large club in the south east that is not going to use EE for its four master flight event. They are going to accept entries on their website and allow no more than four dogs to be entered at a time by anyone. I am sure one of them will post on this thread. It will eliminate the abuse that takes place with the EE VIP program, or those who get tipped off and fill all the entries by registering 20 dogs at once. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out because pro entries are usually high at this event with lots of pros running a lot of dogs.
> More power to em. Somebody has to do something and they are at least trying.



I hope more clubs do this! If u are a pro shouldn't u be running field trials and not HT designed for the Am. trainer?


----------



## Pete

I suppose if people are going to blame the MN for all these problems then they must admit the MN has added to the success of the hunt test program also. The MN was started when hunt tests were in their infancy. Akc launched the HT program in 85 and by 91 we had the first MN. It has only been since the popularity of these events that some places are having problems. Times are changing,,,so it would stand to reason that some of the rules about entering these events should change. The solution is so simple. And the only people who could be hurt by the rule change are the pro's ,,,,in which almost all the complaints about entering are that the pro's have to many dogs. So who would complain except a hand full of pro's.
Change the rules so a club can propose new entry rules which would be exceedingly more fair for those clubs than they are now. There is nothing fair about a working club member not to be able to enter their dog in their own event.
Pete

Here in our neck of the woods we need truck loads of dogs to enter .


----------



## MooseGooser

Just thinking out loud here! Dont really understand all this,,but,,,,,

What if MN clubs only were allowed to hold Master tests? In other words,,no Junior, Senior? Those levels would be replaced with Master level tests only, You would have 3 master tests available for people to run!

Then also drop the yearly re-quailifications?


----------



## RookieTrainer

Dan Wegner said:


> Paul, you hit the nail on the head. Similar to the point I made earlier. Neither the AKC, MNRC or member clubs desire to change the status quo. They are all making money and tests are full. Unfortunately, I fear that continuing down this road will lead to the ultimate demise of hunt tests. But for now, all the organization's with the ability to change the status quo have no incentive to do so.


Dan, you are spot on here. This is not unlike the housing crisis or any other speculative bubble in concept. It looks to me like the HT game may be in an early 2008 position in that the seeds for the crash are already sown but nobody can see the crash coming because the money is still rolling in. And it looks like interest is always increasing, kind of like home prices maybe? In my experience, everything will go along OK in perpetuity until it doesn't.


----------



## MooseGooser

What if you passed 10 straight SENIOR tests,you would automatically achieve Master Hunter?

Stupid Idear,,,, Just tryin to make it easier on myself!


----------



## The Snows

Cooper said:


> Another I have pondered for sometime is to start another hunt test movement that is neither AKC or UKC affiliated. It doesn't have to be affiliated with any registry organization. If you establish good rules and definite guidelines for each stake, and get good judges, what else is there? The dogs would have to earn there passes not get gifts or it wouldn't mean anything. It might take a little time to catch on but I think it would work out great.


There is ..... it's called NAHRA!


----------



## fishduck

My preference is to increase supply by whatever means are available. Lack of dedicated, competent workers seems to be one issue. The other is lack of grounds. If you are working at tests then please accept my thanks! Also thanks to all the judges that give up their weekends. The need for more of both is real. If you are not helping please consider volunteering. Most of the time it is a lot of fun!!

It concerns me that the pros are the focus of the current witch hunt. Many pros work their butts off at weekend tests and also judge. Several offer their grounds to hold tests. Most will help if asked.


----------



## Larry R. Heil

well written and very true.


----------



## The Snows

MooseGooser said:


> Then also drop the yearly re-quailifications?


Others have stated this as well .... and I agree. Why does a dog who has qualified at the MN need to re-qualify every year? Why not just grandfather them into the MN on an annual basis? Or if you want to ensure the dog is still capable of MH work, stipulate that they must pass 2 Master tests during the annual qualifying period. (This is the way that the CKC handles dogs who have passed the Canadian National Master test)

The MN is not going to lose any money as the "plate chasers" (as others have called them) will still be entering the annual MN. And those that are trying to title and attend the MN would be able to do so, so the numbers would probably continue to increase at that event. This would certainly free up room in the weekend tests for those just trying to title their dog. Would the clubs lose money, I don't think they would, as the tests would most likely still be full, but with those who have been not been able to enter. 

Just my 2 cents ......


----------



## Pam Spears

The Snows said:


> Others have stated this as well .... and I agree. Why does a dog who has qualified at the MN need to re-qualify every year? Why not just grandfather them into the MN on an annual basis? Or if you want to ensure the dog is still capable of MH work, stipulate that they must pass 2 Master tests during the annual qualifying period. (This is the way that the CKC handles dogs who have passed the Canadian National Master test)
> 
> The MN is not going to lose any money as the "plate chasers" (as others have called them) will still be entering the annual MN. And those that are trying to title and attend the MN would be able to do so, so the numbers would probably continue to increase at that event. This would certainly free up room in the weekend tests for those just trying to title their dog. Would the clubs lose money, I don't think they would, as the tests would most likely still be full, but with those who have been not been able to enter.
> 
> Just my 2 cents ......


The interesting thing about this argument is that the MN club itself is looking at ways to control the size of their ever-growing event. Even THEY don't seem to want it to be bigger each year. That might be why they aren't pursuing the option to eliminate re-qualifying each year (which would help so much with the entry problems at the local level.)

The analogy of the housing boom works pretty well for me... hard to see how it will all shake out, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better. The good thing is, it's a good problem to have. Although I still occasionally read about "lack of new blood" the real problem is we have more competitors than we can handle.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

sapitrucha said:


> I hope more clubs do this! If u are a pro shouldn't u be running field trials and not HT designed for the Am. trainer?


Are your HTs designed only for the Amateur trainer??? Why send all pros elsewhere; some are probably very helpful w/ club events?JMO


----------



## Jerry Beil

Why don't clubs just drop their MN affiliation? That would make their MH passes not count towards MN Qualification, and thus solve the problem of too many entries.

If the clubs who put on the events don't want to drop the MN affiliation, then the members of said clubs who have a problem with getting shut out of events should take it up with their own clubs.

The challenge with that is that the MH numbers for those clubs would go down and they wouldn't be able to make money putting on tests.

So the clubs are making money on the higher numbers, the AKC is, the MN is, the pros are. The only person who's really getting the short end is the unaffiliated individual, and they're welcome to join a club and help put on the events.

People keep saying that it's not possible to increase the supply, but I think that is incorrect. It's not possible for individual people or clubs to do a lot to increase the supply, but if we all got together and the AKC and Pros and MN chipped in to make it happen we could bring more people into the game and more grounds, which would result in an increased supply. I don't think too many clubs are willing to put on additional events with things the way they are.

What if you could put on 2 versions of MH test. A MN Qualified one and a MH qualified one. What if you had to. If you eliminate the folks who are only interested in MN level qualifying passes, then you'd have a flight with probably similar to a little higher numbers than you have on JH and SH.

What if you had to be an active club member to be able to have your dog run at tests?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

I have nothing against Pros, I have a problem with the ability of 20+ dogs under one handler to get entered in a test with one click of a button, and those 20+ entries not being charged until after the closed date (meaning they can also be pulled at anytime with No money being tied up, so they can enter those same 20+ dog over and over holding mythical spots, which aren't and may never be paid for). When a single person, gets charged right away. I know of Amateurs that are starting their own 20+ dog list So whoever's online is able to enter the whole groups dogs one click of a button as well; still one persons card is charged right away (and those other entrants better pay up rather quick ). There are even people who are putting their dogs on VIP lists, just so they can get in instantly when the other 20+ dog get in. 20 dogs x $80 = $1600. How many tests are you gonna hold 20 spots in for $1600 if your charged instantly?. Figure tests posted 3-4 months ahead of time say your holding 20 spots in 4 tests = $6400 if you paid for it, but nothing if your not charged until the close date approaches. No money tide-up lets enter a few more tests .


----------



## JS

Pete said:


> I suppose if people are going to blame the MN for all these problems then they must admit the MN has added to the success of the hunt test program also. The MN was started when hunt tests were in their infancy. Akc launched the HT program in 85 and by 91 we had the first MN. It has only been since the popularity of these events that some places are having problems. Times are changing,,,so it would stand to reason that some of the rules about entering these events should change. The solution is so simple. *And the only people who could be hurt by the rule change are the pro's ,,,,in which almost all the complaints about entering are that the pro's have to many dogs. So who would complain except a hand full of pro's.*
> Change the rules so a club can propose new entry rules which would be exceedingly more fair for those clubs than they are now. There is nothing fair about a working club member not to be able to enter their dog in their own event.
> Pete
> 
> Here in our neck of the woods we need truck loads of dogs to enter .


Regardless of the method, when you put limitations on pros entries, those *"who would complain"* would be those clients of the affected pros whose dog's don't get entered. You have to consider that if a pro has 20 dogs running master, he represents 20 individual owners (less a few due to owners with multiple dogs), and when some of his dogs get shut out those owners just join the crowd of rightful complainers who will be back in the mix next week. It may be more faiir but it doesn't solve the long-term problem of "not enough opportunities for the number wanting to run".

The long term solution (as long as this popularity exists) has to be to increase the number of opportunities. Separating the weekenders seeking the MH from those trying to qualify for the MN ... in any number of ways ... would do this. Ramping up *performance* requirements for passing could be a part of that, also. If you're looking for the higher level dogs, it makes sense to set higher level tests for the dogs rather than requiring them to pass a number of "mediocre" tests.

Even for those just seeking the MH title, there is far too much disparity in the standard among tests I have observed in the past several years. But that's another topic.

JS


----------



## JS

Jerry Beil said:


> Why don't clubs just drop their MN affiliation? That would make their MH passes not count towards MN Qualification, and thus solve the problem of too many entries.
> 
> If the clubs who put on the events don't want to drop the MN affiliation, then the members of said clubs who have a problem with getting shut out of events should take it up with their own clubs.
> 
> The challenge with that is that the MH numbers for those clubs would go down and they wouldn't be able to make money putting on tests.
> 
> So the clubs are making money on the higher numbers, the AKC is, the MN is, the pros are. The only person who's really getting the short end is the unaffiliated individual, and they're welcome to join a club and help put on the events.
> 
> People keep saying that it's not possible to increase the supply, but I think that is incorrect. It's not possible for individual people or clubs to do a lot to increase the supply, but if we all got together and the AKC and Pros and MN chipped in to make it happen we could bring more people into the game and more grounds, which would result in an increased supply. I don't think too many clubs are willing to put on additional events with things the way they are.
> 
> *What if you could put on 2 versions of MH test. A MN Qualified one and a MH qualified one. What if you had to.* If you eliminate the folks who are only interested in MN level qualifying passes, then you'd have a flight with probably similar to a little higher numbers than you have on JH and SH.
> 
> What if you had to be an active club member to be able to have your dog run at tests?


Bingo! See post 103

JS


----------



## DoubleHaul

Jerry Beil said:


> Why don't clubs just drop their MN affiliation? That would make their MH passes not count towards MN Qualification, and thus solve the problem of too many entries.


I think we will see more of that as clubs struggle with the best way to deal with the demand. 

I think it would be interesting if a club who was a member of the MNRC could designate whether a HT counted or not, without actually dropping membership. It would give a little more flexibility--especially to clubs in areas with lots of snowbirds. The winter HT could be a non counter and the other one could count. Would certainly help in some areas.


----------



## weathered

What about the changes EE said they would be introducing in January? What are they? Will they help and how?

I do know a hunt test secretary told me EE did say some changes would be coming. I don't know they all are though.


----------



## downbirds

Don't know which post but I agree with become active on the committee, and leave master national. Enough clubs do this, the MN club and AKC will do some thing. Right now test are, in certain areas, filling up, they don't care by who/whom they just like the checks from full events. Another problem is being able to enter 15,20,30dogs with the push of a button. I know a few pro's, the ones I know see the problems, and agree with the average Joe for the most part. IMHO there are a few that are abusing the system. Last year I printed out a couple of test in the Midwest, that filled up in under a hour, shortly after they filled. At the time of the event I compared that list with those dogs that ran. In one event all 17 dogs entered in the push of a button were scratched. Many of the events had many dogs scratched by the same handful of people. Many of these events happened without filling the limits, due to scratches. Two things, 1st I know why didn't the AM's take those spots?, well a week before is to late for most to tell work oh by the way I'm taking vacation next Friday. 2nd isn't there something in the AKC rules about sportsmanship. Filling spots with the push of a button to reserve spots is so unsportsmanlike. Just so if down the road, a dog needs one more pass, you have a spot. Scratch enter done, I want to say why isn't there a waiting list, but they don't have to pay up front, so they will just enter more dogs, and once again many can't go at a last minutes notice due to work. Print out a few events this year when the fill, and then go back and look at which dogs actually run. Last year was an eye opener for me.


----------



## Swampcollie

Jerry Beil said:


> Why don't clubs just drop their MN affiliation?


There are a number of clubs considering exactly that. 




Jerry Beil said:


> The challenge with that is that the MH numbers for those clubs would go down and they wouldn't be able to make money putting on tests.


That's not true. There are a number of clubs that only offer Junior and Senior tests and they're not writing red ink. 

In the case of our club, the largest portion of the net profit from an event comes from the Junior tests, Senior tests and the O/H Q. The amount of net profit a Master test delivers for our club is minimal at best and that test consumes the largest share of human resources in the process.


----------



## JS

Thomas D said:


> In the FT world, once a dog quals for the Natl Open or Am do they stop running trials? If not why not stop running and give others a chance to qual?
> It's the same with ht. People qual and keep running. It's their right to do so. Merely changing the MN qual passes won't necessarily lowers weekend entries.


In the FT world, yes, most all will stop running once they qualify for the national. Not required but is considered sportsmanlike.

JS


----------



## Willie Alderson

What if they changed the regs on entering a dog on EE. Take away the "VIP" perk and make the owners of the dogs sign up. If the owner forgets to sign up or sign up too late, they miss that test. I wasn't fully aware of the VIP entering system, I commented earlier on this post saying it wasn't the fault of EE. Maybe it is. If everyone has a level playing field signing up, then at least everyone has a chance.


----------



## Swampcollie

Willie Alderson said:


> What if they changed the regs on entering a dog on EE. Take away the "VIP" perk and make the owners of the dogs sign up. If the owner forgets to sign up or sign up too late, they miss that test. I wasn't fully aware of the VIP entering system, I commented earlier on this post saying it wasn't the fault of EE. Maybe it is. If everyone has a level playing field signing up, then at least everyone has a chance.


Tweaking the entry system could help to eliminate the unfairness in getting entered and put everybody on equal footing in that respect, but it does not address the total numbers issue.

When the concept of the Master National was proposed to the clubs many years ago it was supposed to be a showcase of the best master dogs from that year. That is not what we're seeing today. Now any dog with six master passes (regardless of the number of attempts) in that year, qualify for the Master National. What you really have today is a Master National that is nothing more than a Convention of master dogs.


----------



## captainjack

Thomas D said:


> In the FT world, once a dog quals for the Natl Open or Am do they stop running trials? If not why not stop running and give others a chance to qual?
> It's the same with ht. People qual and keep running. It's their right to do so. Merely changing the MN qual passes won't necessarily lowers weekend entries.


I know of two regulars at the Nationals that did stop running their qualified dogs so that others would have the chance to qualify. I personally quit running the Q after my dog got a 2nd place finish for the same reason (and got a 2nd in the Am the next trial we ran). Not saying others should only pointing out that some do.


----------



## downbirds

From the AKC Code of Sportsmanship; Sportsmen refuse to compromise their commitment and obligation to the sport of purebred dogs by injecting personal advantage or consideration into their decisions or behavior, by entering to hold spots, preventing others from being able to participate is not very sporting. It is legal in Iowa to set up a decoy spread on public land 30 40 yards from a spread already being hunted over, legal yes, but not very ethical. As for hiding behind my computer It is a internet forum, I have not called any single one person out, just pointed out that their are those that take advantage of the rules unethically. I also stated that I know many pro's that are pitching in and not taking advantage of a situation. If you would like to discuss this personally with me and see if we can find a solution, I will be training this weekend at Chichaqua dog training area east of Elkart, Iowa come on out bring your dog will be doing a couple set of marks and probably a few blinds, one of which will probably be a poison bird.


----------



## Tim Carrion

JS said:


> In the FT world, yes, most all will stop running once they qualify for the national. Not required but is considered sportsmanlike.
> 
> JS


Maybe in a few instances but certainly not a universal practice. Significant interest in the Purina Highpoint Dog awards 

Tim


----------



## Brokengunz

Just curious if anyone has an old HT Catalog. Maybe from the 90s before the MN. How many dogs running master already had master titled compared to today.


----------



## huntinman

Tim Carrion said:


> Maybe in a few instances but certainly not a universal practice. Significant interest in the Purina Highpoint Dog awards
> 
> Tim



Exactly... Derby, AM and Open.


----------



## JS

Tim Carrion said:


> Maybe in a few instances but certainly not a universal practice. Significant interest in the Purina Highpoint Dog awards
> 
> Tim


We live in different parts of the country so I won't say you are wrong but I know several dozen folks who have qualified on this circuit and most of them stop, or drastically curtail running. Maybe a few trials to keep them sharp, that's it.

As far as QAA goes, I feel that's a different deal. I had a dog that won her first Q at 2 yrs and 4 mos. and was not ready for AA. I continued to run her because she needed the exposure and no one said anything. If they had, I would have told them to go home and train ... you'll have to beat better dog's than me before you're done! :razz:

JS


----------



## Thomas D

downbirds said:


> From the AKC Code of Sportsmanship; Sportsmen refuse to compromise their commitment and obligation to the sport of purebred dogs by injecting personal advantage or consideration into their decisions or behavior, by entering to hold spots, preventing others from being able to participate is not very sporting. It is legal in Iowa to set up a decoy spread on public land 30 40 yards from a spread already being hunted over, legal yes, but not very ethical. As for hiding behind my computer It is a internet forum, I have not called any single one person out, just pointed out that their are those that take advantage of the rules unethically. I also stated that I know many pro's that are pitching in and not taking advantage of a situation. If you would like to discuss this personally with me and see if we can find a solution, I will be training this weekend at Chichaqua dog training area east of Elkart, Iowa come on out bring your dog will be doing a couple set of marks and probably a few blinds, one of which will probably be a poison bird.


Entering 20 dogs because EE has the system to do so isn't unsportsmanlike conduct. Entering a retired or dead dog to save a position in a HT for a friend is. And don't tell me it hasn't been done.


----------



## Criquetpas

Brokengunz said:


> Just curious if anyone has an old HT Catalog. Maybe from the 90s before the MN. How many dogs running master already had master titled compared to today.


First Master National was 1991..Records? I have RFTN and the first Master National finalists on the cover. Unfortunately is at my Cabin in the UP of Michigan, but, as memories serves me, it sure wasn't even a smidgen of the numbers now including the finalists. As someone who has been running the weekend Master Tests with many different dogs since about 1987 to this year, the numbers have increased many, many fold. All dogs were Master titled. I don't think the Framers of the Master Hunt Tests ever considered the vast numbers implications and the dominance of Professional Trainers circa 2015 as MN qualifiers. My opinion as stated before, everyone is responsible for their own entry...or clubs drop out of the Master National "fraternal " LOL club. Folks it aint gonna get better with the MN numbers until some drastic measures are taken or something as simple as you make your entry is made. Some FT pros in the Middle West anyway are having clients make their own entries. There are very old sayings " there is no honor among thieves", it is human nature to "take care of myself" or you first after me. In other words you are totally responsible for yourself making entries or the AKC has to step in and that is laughable. My opinion


----------



## DoubleHaul

downbirds said:


> Filling spots with the push of a button to reserve spots is so unsportsmanlike. Just so if down the road, a dog needs one more pass, you have a spot.


I do not understand why some folks seem to think there is a conspiracy on EE that gives folks an advantage. The VIP entry service on EE allows only that the folks who enter do not have to pay right away--they have an account essentially. It gives the few members (not all pros are members--way fewer than most think) absolutely no advantage in entering. 

I have all my dogs listed in EE. I could add any dog I want that is in the database as well. You can do the same thing. I can enter all my dogs just as quickly as any pro. The dogs are already in "My dogs" and my browser can populate all the fields so it is simply clicking 'next' one or two more times after I click which dogs to enter.

EE, as pointed out earlier, levels the playing field way more than the old way of sending entries to a HTS and having that person decide who gets in.


----------



## Thomas D

The first Master National Hunting Test for Retrievers was held in Chesapeake City, MD on September 15, 1991 with 94 entries. Twenty-six dogs qualified at the event chaired by Larry Wharton and mainly staffed by volunteers from local clubs. At this first Master National, the Master National Retriever Club was formed with representatives from 59 clubs attending. Bill Speck was elected to serve as the first President of the club. A vice president and director were elected from each of the four regions, and Linda Furr was elected to serve as Secretary/Treasurer. It was voted that the Master National would rotate among the four regions of the United States.

From AKC


----------



## Pete

> Regardless of the method, when you put limitations on pros entries, those *"who would complain" would be those clients of the affected pros whose dog's don't get entered. You have to consider that if a pro has 20 dogs running master, he represents 20 individual owners (less a few due to owners with multiple dogs), and when some of his dogs get shut out those owners just join the crowd of rightful complainers who will be back in the mix next week. It may be more faiir but it doesn't solve the long-term problem of "not enough opportunities for the number wanting to run".
> 
> The long term solution (as long as this popularity exists) has to be to increase the number of opportunities. Separating the weekenders seeking the MH from those trying to qualify for the MN ... in any number of ways ... would do this. Ramping upperformance requirements for passing could be a part of that, also. If you're looking for the higher level dogs, it makes sense to set higher level tests for the dogs rather than requiring them to pass a number of "mediocre" tests.
> 
> Even for those just seeking the MH title, there is far too much disparity in the standard among tests I have observed in the past several years. But that's another topic.*


Who cares
If a pro who usually takes 20 now can only take 10 then he will most likely take the dogs still looking to title.
It way more important for a club member to get into his own clubs test than it is for some guy no one has ever seen at their test. If HT are truly for the hobbyists then give them first crack at it. Let the pro travel to Idaho to run. We will receive them with open arms. And they can bring their Pro buddies too.

If I had a truck of dogs I would gladly give up to run some of them in order for a club member to get in. Its a no brainier. Its the working club members that make things happen,,,quit screwing them. As far as putting on extra events,,,,well the same people will end up putting them on and we're all ready burnt after the 4th one. Let the complainers put the extra events on.


----------



## captainjack

Thomas D said:


> Entering 20 dogs because EE has the system to do so isn't unsportsmanlike conduct. Entering a retired or dead dog to save a position in a HT for a friend is. And don't tell me it hasn't been done.


I would never tell you that it hasn't been done, but why would they not just add their friend's dog under their EE account so that they could enter. Seams like these people are spending more time trying to do it the unsportsmanlike way than would required to do it ligit.


----------



## Brad B

DoubleHaul said:


> I do not understand why some folks seem to think there is a conspiracy on EE that gives folks an advantage. The VIP entry service on EE allows only that the folks who enter do not have to pay right away--they have an account essentially. It gives the few members (not all pros are members--way fewer than most think) absolutely no advantage in entering.
> 
> I have all my dogs listed in EE. I could add any dog I want that is in the database as well. You can do the same thing. I can enter all my dogs just as quickly as any pro. The dogs are already in "My dogs" and my browser can populate all the fields so it is simply clicking 'next' one or two more times after I click which dogs to enter.
> 
> EE, as pointed out earlier, levels the playing field way more than the old way of sending entries to a HTS and having that person decide who gets in.


Same here, I don't understand the complaint that it takes "sooo long!" to enter a dog. Type faster and bitch less!


----------



## golfandhunter

DoubleHaul said:


> I do not understand why some folks seem to think there is a conspiracy on EE that gives folks an advantage. The VIP entry service on EE allows only that the folks who enter do not have to pay right away--they have an account essentially. It gives the few members (not all pros are members--way fewer than most think) absolutely no advantage in entering.
> 
> I have all my dogs listed in EE. I could add any dog I want that is in the database as well. You can do the same thing. I can enter all my dogs just as quickly as any pro. The dogs are already in "My dogs" and my browser can populate all the fields so it is simply clicking 'next' one or two more times after I click which dogs to enter.
> 
> EE, as pointed out earlier, levels the playing field way more than the old way of sending entries to a HTS and having that person decide who gets in.


Thanks Penn, I am a computer Dummy, but Google Chrome fills all the fields. I can enter all my crew in a few seconds?


----------



## downbirds

Mr. Dorroh I think we are on the same page essentially. And I believe dogs that have passed away or are retired, or belong to one of the judges, are or have been entered. But I also think when some people enter a slew of dogs, with no intention of actually running some of them, doing it just to reserve spots, that is not very sporting. Like I said earlier, print off the list of filled test and when it comes time of the event compare. The same few are scratching a large percentage of dogs they originally entered at multiple events, makes a person go hum . Maybe I'm just negative or suspicious, but seems odd when it happens over and over. I know things happen and from time to time you have to scratch a dog, but when its 2,3,6, dogs at each event, leads one to believe they hit the button enter all their dogs and the heck with everyone else. They aren't out anything, because unlike the majority of us they don't pay on the spot, and I think, I may be wrong, if they scratch before they pay they don't lose anything. If I scratch prior to closing I think I still lose my EE fee. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I am sorry all this complaining doesn't help solve the problem, and I'm as guilty as anyone on this. Hopefully at some point all sides will come up with a solution that will be fair for everyone. Or at least somewhat fair for all.


----------



## Dan Wegner

i know some are crying foul about some sort of EE conspiracy, I'm not one of them. I don't believe what is now happening as a result of the VIP program was ever intended when the service was first offered. Unfortunately, VIP members are now benefitting from the ability to enter a number of dogs more efficiently than the average user, who is disadvantaged as a result. Then there are a select few VIP members that are entering their entire truck in as many limited tests as possible as soon as they open. They do not have to pay for the entries until the tests close. How is that NOT an advantage over the average Joe??? Later, they scratch from certain events or scratch dogs who just aren't ready, at the last minute. Theoretically, those slots could be filled by amateurs that didn't get into the test initially, but the reality is they may have already made other plans or cannot get off work on short notice.

The VIP program needs to be discontinued. That will still not resolve the problem, but at least folks will have an equal shot at getting entered.


----------



## Migillicutty

Dan Wegner said:


> i know some are crying foul about some sort of EE conspiracy, I'm not one of them. I don't believe what is now happening as a result of the VIP program was ever intended when the service was first offered. Unfortunately, VIP members are now benefitting from the ability to enter a number of dogs more efficiently than the average user, who is disadvantaged as a result. Then there are a select few VIP members that are entering their entire truck in as many limited tests as possible as soon as they open. They do not have to pay for the entries until the tests close. How is that NOT an advantage over the average Joe??? Later, they scratch from certain events or scratch dogs who just aren't ready, at the last minute. Theoretically, those slots could be filled by amateurs that didn't get into the test initially, but the reality is they may have already made other plans or cannot get off work on short notice.
> 
> The VIP program needs to be discontinued. That will still not resolve the problem, but at least folks will have an equal shot at getting entered.


I agree with this, it is not just ease of use and speed at which they can enter. It is that a handful of pros can enter 20 dogs a piece in a matter of minutes without paying and thus no incentive to actually find out if the dog is going to run. This takes up a majority of the spots leaving a severely restricted remaining pool of opportunities for those entering themselves. It leaves the AM's with one or two dogs fighting over the leftovers. I can use a computer fine, and I can fill out my info pretty quickly, but when you are essentially competing for 20% of the slots in a limited test that are going to fill in under ten minutes your odds are not good.


----------



## Keith Stroyan

golfandhunter said:


> ... I am a computer Dummy ...


Me, too, but if someone knows how to add subtitles, there's a solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuTz3NL32AM


----------



## downbirds

Let me state this clearly if I can "I do not believe there is an EE conspiracy" I think a few take advantage of the system. Kind of like food stamps. Good idea but some, to many with food stamps, take advantage , find the loop holes and work the system for a purpose that it was not intended for.


----------



## jacduck

Only solution is a pro circuit and an amateur circuit. Ams volunteer to work their venue and Pros pay the cost of doing business.


----------



## downbirds

From the EE web page "Our VIP program is exclusively for high volume handlers. Designed with the pro in mind." I guess for us that have one or two dogs we matter less. You can say there is no advantage to the VIP system, but maybe you should go to the EE page and read the VIP benefits. I don't think EE was trying to give them an advantage. Just stream lining entries to make their life easier. Good for them they are a business, they need to show a profit, and God knows they have made the hunt test secs. job, a heck of a lot easier. But there is a loop hole, it allows those who choose, to flood an event with no risk financially.


----------



## RookieTrainer

fishduck said:


> It concerns me that the pros are the focus of the current witch hunt. Many pros work their butts off at weekend tests and also judge. Several offer their grounds to hold tests. Most will help if asked.


Absolutely true


----------



## RookieTrainer

DoubleHaul said:


> I do not understand why some folks seem to think there is a conspiracy on EE that gives folks an advantage. The VIP entry service on EE allows only that the folks who enter do not have to pay right away--they have an account essentially. It gives the few members (not all pros are members--way fewer than most think) absolutely no advantage in entering.
> 
> I have all my dogs listed in EE. I could add any dog I want that is in the database as well. You can do the same thing. I can enter all my dogs just as quickly as any pro. The dogs are already in "My dogs" and my browser can populate all the fields so it is simply clicking 'next' one or two more times after I click which dogs to enter.
> 
> EE, as pointed out earlier, levels the playing field way more than the old way of sending entries to a HTS and having that person decide who gets in.


Just a question - if there's no advantage to a VIP program, why have it at all and why call it a "VIP" program?


----------



## Swampcollie

Earlier someone asked about the number of titled master dogs entering tests. Well I went back through club catalogs back to the early 90's.

From 92 through 96 we would see roughly between 28 - 35 master dogs entered per test. Of those 1 or 2 were MH titled dogs. So less than ten percent were titled. 

From 97 through 01 average master entries climbed to about 40 - 45 dogs. Of those about nine percent were already MH titled dogs.

From 01 through 05 average master entries climbed to about 60 - 70 dogs. Of those 25 percent were already MH titled dogs.

In our last test of 2014 we had 132 master entries. Of those 49 percent were already master titled dogs.


----------



## Jerry Beil

Here were the changes proposed for Entry Express and I think they're working on having them approved or making the changes...

1. Open Entries no more than 30 days prior to the event.
2. Openings would be Wed - 8PM CT
3. Create a standby list for entries over the limit on limited tests.
4. When entered dogs are scratched the slot fills from the standby list.
5. Clubs will be able to have priority entry for a certain number of dogs to be handled by club members


----------



## Jerry Beil

There are 2 reasons clubs want to be able to have limits. First is the grounds and help. The second is also important and maybe something can be done to help with this area. If there are over 60 dogs in a test, the flights have to be split. So, there's a point where there is significant extra expense and help needed for very little additional income.

If I limit to 60 or 120 or something I know I'll fill, it allows me to know how much help, grounds, birds, etc. I'll need.

Any ideas around how that could be handled so clubs would consider going back to unlimited tests if this is a primary driver? Or at least up the limit?

Some other way to keep an extra flight from being added for so few extra dogs?


----------



## suepuff

A


swampcollie said:


> when the concept of the master national was proposed to the clubs many years ago it was supposed to be a showcase of the best master dogs from that year. That is not what we're seeing today. Now any dog with six master passes (regardless of the number of attempts) in that year, qualify for the master national. What you really have today is a master national that is nothing more than a *convention* of *master* dogs.


^^^^^^^^this


----------



## captainjack

downbirds said:


> From the EE web page "Our VIP program is exclusively for high volume handlers. Designed with the pro in mind." I guess for us that have one or two dogs we matter less. You can say there is no advantage to the VIP system, but maybe you should go to the EE page and read the VIP benefits. I don't think EE was trying to give them an advantage. Just stream lining entries to make their life easier. Good for them they are a business, they need to show a profit, and God knows they have made the hunt test secs. job, a heck of a lot easier. But there is a loop hole, it allows those who choose, to flood an event with no risk financially.


You should read a little further regarding how/when the pro has to settle and also how/when the club gets paid.

As an individual handler entering hunt tests, I hated tying my money up for months in advance. Well the clubs can solve that issue today by not opening an event so far in advance. That would even the playing field immediately in that regard. Open it 30 days before the event date, and I can pay with a CC that won't be due until the same date the pro has to pay. 

With that said, if there was no VIP, I'd expect most pros (I would if I were a pro) to list all 20 of there client dogs in EE, enter & pay with a CC and bill their clients before the CC payment comes due. 

So you'd be no better off whether there is a VIP or not.

Someone earlier wrote - do away with VIP. It won't fix the problem but...

All these attacks on the EE, VIP and pros etc. Don't forget, 1/2 or more of the people who use EE and VIP don't even run hunt tests, they run field trials, and some that do run hts may not run Master. 

Why don't you folks expend some time and effort coming up with ideas that will actually fix the problem of too many dogs for too few slots.

Several things have been proposed:
Conflicting tests,
Blind draws (not a fix, but the only thing that is actually fair),
No annual MN qualifying,
3/3, 5/6 pass etc. To a Qual for MN,
Raise the standard for MH pass,
Owner/handler Master tests,
Amateur handler Master tests, 
Raise entry fee (not the way IMO),
Quit running those HTs and come run FTs (way more satisfying IMO)

I'm sure I've missed several other things that, work or not, actually focus of fixing the problem.


----------



## JoeOverby

I'll tell you why Glen...because they don't want fair. They say they do but honestly they dont...they want to be able to get their dogs in and once that is done it doesn't matter what the problem is. In the mean time the pros are the problem or EE is the problem...forget the fact that this problem didn't exist 3 years ago....


----------



## Thomas D

I have herd there is a committee working on the limited entry problem. However, from the names I have heard I doubt if any of them ever got shut out of a test. More AKC business as usual. Keep the "old guard" in power and in decision making positions. All this combined with the fact many club BOD make all the decisions, not much will change.


----------



## sapitrucha

Why don't they just run MN twice a year and this will eliminate some of the problem, only 3 test to qualify.


----------



## Thomas D

sapitrucha said:


> Why don't they just run MN twice a year and this will eliminate some of the problem, only 3 test to qualify.


Too much like HRC.


----------



## Kyle Bertram

We will not solve this problem until we provide more available entry opportunities at the appropriate time of the year. You MUST focus on the problem that at certain times of the year(generally after the new qualifying year starts) There is an appearance there are not enough entry opportunity. This tends to incite a frenzied type mindset that make people feel an urgency to get their dogs entered and qualified. I'm not convinced there is really an overall shortage.

My idea of allowing clubs to provide Master tests only ( no lower stakes) after they have provide the required support of Jr/Sr, was immediately shot down by the AKC. I was told "That's never going to happen" ......why?

Assuming this was ever approved. The next problem is available and willing Judges. Folks this is a problem that we CAN Solve!! 

So my suggestions to solve this:

Demand more tests without requiring lower stakes . This allows clubs to put on tests where there is demand. No demand.....no tests.

Lower the competing mileage radius.( This can always be raised back up if our game changes again).

Make yourself available to judge....GET OUT AND JUDGE!!!! How about, if you declare yourself a pro, you HAVE to judge two events a year? seems logical to me.


----------



## downbirds

The problem we face right now IMHO, are AM's losing interest or not being able to get into test close to there geographical location.
Let's look for solutions, please no personal attacks. I don't feel we can do away with limits, because it should be up to clubs/volunteers as to how much of their free time they give. Problems as I see them and have been voiced in the past
A. opening times for sign ups.
a. one month prior to closing opens at 7pm clubs local time
1.* pro* everyone knows when it opens, no advance heads up for anyone
2. *con* more work for EE they will have to set it up in their system
B. Limit the number of dogs that can be entered at once
a. 6 dogs max. at one time
1. *pro it *works for other events, gives everyone a chance to get in 
2. *con* will cost those on VIP a little more in EE charges and EE will have a little more work
b. solution increase EE fees by 0.50 to off set extra cost
c. *con *it will be more work for multiple dog handlers to enter events by doing 6 at a time
1. solution we are all going to have to compromise and give a little
d. increase fees by EE to include added credit card fees,
1. addressed above, up EE fees .50 to a 1.00
C. change quals. for Master National
a. be mh titled
b. make it 4 passes no more than 2 fails at MN club
1. *pro* make more prestigious instead of running 10,15 events to get 6 passes
2. *pro* takes the number of dogs running to qual. down a bit opening a few more slots
3.* pro *AKC, clubs MN, pros still going to get decent numbers hence money
4.* con* pro's might lose out on some income due to running dogs less
D. regional qual event for MN lower quals for regional pass your regional to qual for national
as of Aug retriever news to my count dogs qualified per region this year
Atlantic 204
East 188
west 164
pacific 169
Regional quals.
1. AKC MH
2. 4 passes at master national club no more than 2 fails
a. *con *AKC and MN may lose some entries but the AKC will pick up some of those not interested in MN, numbers, and ave. Joes
b. *con* Pro's will lose some in handling fees
four regionals, can only run one, these will rotate amongst master national clubs willing to host. This will give clubs ,pro's, MN, and AKC added income, to off set some that is lost.
Pass the regional to qualify for national.

By adding regionals and lowering the amount of passes needed plus a pass percentage, it takes some of the heat off of the full enters, but by needing to qualify for regionals, local clubs will still get good numbers of pros and ams. The pros can make up some of their lost of handling fees by handling fees at regionals. Clubs, AKC, MN are going to still make money due to full test and the added income from the regionals. The down side, one I see, is the average Joe wanting to go to the MN, now needs to take another week of vacation for the regional, besides the national. I'm sure there are other negatives but we need to start some where. please give pros and cons to any suggestions or tweeks.


----------



## Bubba

Several things occur to me.
1. Who judges the "Regional" events? How are they selected? The become as important as the judges actually elected for the MN. What clubs have the grounds/help/desire to put on one more test a year? What if Region 4 can't find a club that is willing? How do we ensure that each regional test is judged to the same standard. What if Region 3 is held in Houston? Not very convenient for the folks in Ronan Montana. Which regional event does a person that lives in Kansas but has his dog with a trainer in California run in? Who organizes the regional events? The MNRC board already has way too much on their plate- they are all volunteers with a real life. When is this regional going to be held? So the dogs need to accumulate enough points to qualify for the regional and actually qualify at the regional with sufficient time left to plan and arrange for a trip to the actual MN. The average Joe is just going to send the dog with the pro to the regional and see what happens after that.

This particular equine has been thoroughly chastised years ago regards

Bubba


----------



## captainjack

Not a personal attack downbirds, but you should read how VIP works regarding fees. VIP pay the same $4.50 fee per entry that you do.

I quit reading at b., but I like the intent.


----------



## Migillicutty

JoeOverby said:


> I'll tell you why Glen...because they don't want fair. They say they do but honestly they dont...they want to be able to get their dogs in and once that is done it doesn't matter what the problem is. In the mean time the pros are the problem or EE is the problem...forget the fact that this problem didn't exist 3 years ago....


I would like fair, and I am for a completely blind draw. That would be better than what we have now, but thanks for knowing what I want. I'll be sure to tell myself later what you figured out about me.


----------



## torg

I still propose the first day or two should be open exclusively to dogs that have not yet earned there Master title, after the 24-48 hour period all dogs Master titled or not can then enter. This would give newcomers or young dogs a chance to earn their Master passes, continuing the interest in Hunt test. Everyone should have a chance to at least get into an event to obtain a Master title on a dog. Of course event opening dates and time would have to be posted.
Linda Torgerson
MHRC treasurer


----------



## SJA

I have been reading these threads as I decide whether or not I want to even attempt to enter a master tests because of the headache. I’m new to the sport and have run HRC events but not AKC, so I’m an outsider.

The only solutions must not hurt the bottom line of the AKC or the clubs. Why would they want to change anything when the majority of tests are full and the Master Nationals has so many entries? Even better they get more money from all the weekend tests that these dogs must pass to qualify or requalify. 

The best solution is increasing supply with more tests, but that will be a slow process with the limited number of people that are actually active in this hobby. I also believe that the more rules there are the more complicated it will become, but here are the solutions I have seen.

The VIP program doesn’t seem to be able to increase the speed of entering, just delaying payment. Why wouldn’t the pros just use a credit card if the VIP program is terminated? Change EE so that only one dog can be entered at a time. The person entering can only select one dog, then they must pay for that dog (or charge it to their account), they can then go back and click on the test again to enter another dog. All information can still be preloaded, but all the clicking around and waiting for pages to load will take some time. This will be a longer process for those wanting to enter multiple dogs. There should not be any rules on how many dogs someone can handle or enter in the event, or that the owner must enter them. It will force the pros to call the owners to enter their own dog if they want a chance at getting in. 

The clubs must post when the event will be open on EE in the premium. This coupled with the above option will ensure an even playing field for all dogs being entered. 

The AKC should have no say so if clubs want to limit entries or conflicting tests. Their job as the governing body should be to provide what the standards should be at each level of testing and ensuring the judges are qualified to judge. The clubs should be treated as businesses providing a service to the public and be run as to how they see fit. If clubs want to host a Master only test one weekend, that’s for them to decide.


----------



## downbirds

1st Mr. Guider go to the sample page on EE VIP, they are as it looks on VIP, charged one charge of 4.50 per transaction not dogs. So if using VIP they enter 2 dogs using VIP, they are charged say 80.00 per dog and one EE transaction fee, total 164.50, if I enter 2 dogs it would be 2 separate transaction fees total 169.00. If I scratch at any time I lose the transaction fee, if they scratch prior to closing of event they lose nothing. This is how I read it according to the sample they show. But then again I have been known to misread things a time or two. Please look at the example and see if you get the same opinion of one fee per transaction thanks.
Mr. Bubba judges could be selected by a committee set up by regional reps, I assume similar to how national judges are chosen. Clubs to host , I think clubs would step up and help be part of the solution, as I stated in previous post everyone is going to have to give a little to make it work. And that might mean 2 or 3 clubs in the same area work together to host an event whether it be a regional or a national. What if a zone can't find a club to host well see above sentence. As for the standards being the same, at the nationals there are 4 flights with 4 sets of judges aren't there. All will look at things differently, luck of the draw, and each qualifying test through the year different judges, luck of the draw. Your dog can run in one region they may need some kind of restrictions such as at least one pass in that region to stop cherry picking. But if your pro is in CA. then run Pac. region but not both. Regionals would have to be about a month prior to allow for time to prepare for the national. I know it will hurt a some average Joes, but the way it is now, seems to be hurting a lot more that can't run local test and even qualify for the MN. And last no it's not a perfect solution, but I don't think there ever will be. But until the government takes it over with free bubble up, and rainbow stew, we need to work together to find something that will work. There seems to be a lot of disgruntled people out there and seems something has to change. If not I'll quite caring, keep running FT's, and it won't hurt my feelings to not work all weekend, and all the committee meetings leading up to our hunt test. I like being out there with a lot of guys like me, that train their own dog, and want to show them off and play. If it's going to go to a handful of pros so busy running dogs to the line they can't visit well, not my cup of tea.


----------



## captainjack

Downbirds,
Read the section under VIP - "Is the VIP program right for you?" Fee is $4.50 per entry which is the same for non-VIP. In the sample entry page, there were 2 entries when the fee used to be $2.00 per entry. Total fees = $4.00.

Additionally, there is no difference in the policy for scratches. The $4.50 is not refunded to VIP members who scratch.


----------



## Troopers Mom

Just squeaked in and got 1 dog entered into a Master that just opened at 6 pm my time. I clicked to see where I was at 6:03 and I was the 55th one entered. By 6:05 there were 123 in a 120 limit. Now there is 123. Well, I got my dog in because I only entered 1 but unfortunately, my pro didn't get any of his other dogs in. This is BULLSHIT!


----------



## JoeOverby

Migillicutty said:


> I would like fair, and I am for a completely blind draw. That would be better than what we have now, but thanks for knowing what I want. I'll be sure to tell myself later what you figured out about me.


Such a saint


----------



## Brad B

Troopers Mom said:


> Just squeaked in and got 1 dog entered into a Master that just opened at 6 pm my time. I clicked to see where I was at 6:03 and I was the 55th one entered. By 6:05 there were 123 in a 120 limit. Now there is 124. Well, I got my dog in because I only entered 1 but unfortunately, my pro didn't get any of his other dogs in. Oops 1 more of his dogs got in at the very last. This is BULLSHIT!


So your entered but still not happy? Confused here


----------



## Troopers Mom

Brad B said:


> So your entered but still not happy? Confused here


Brad, if you would have read the rest you would have seen that my Pro didn't get any of his other dogs in. Do you think he will make the trip for 1 dog? I'm not happy because unlike a lot of others, I don't just think about myself. I'm thinking about everyone that didn't have a chance. And it seems to be the same ones that lose out time and time again. I think limits for limits sake is killing the sport. I know I am getting pretty damn fed up.


----------



## Moose Mtn

huntinman said:


> My question is why would anyone want to play a game they can't count on actually participating in?
> 
> There are plenty of other games out there and your dog sure as hell won't care as long as retrieving is involved.


As a barrel racer- I've been playing this game of getting entered for years. Before Internet it meant calling and getting a busy signal for hours trying to get into a rodeo. 

I dont have have the answer, and get equally frustrated when I dont get in- but also am a bit more accepting of it.


----------



## splashdash

Against my better judgment I'd like to say I understand the frustration, but our club does not limit the master entries for limits sake.


----------



## Troopers Mom

splashdash said:


> Against my better judgment I'd like to say I understand the frustration, but our club does not limit the master entries for limits sake.


Up until just two years ago, there were no limits. One club was given the okay and then everyone jumped on the band wagon. What is one to think? It's rampant now.


----------



## Migillicutty

JoeOverby said:


> Such a saint


You are quite the presumptuous one one aren't you? Guess you have the market cornered on ethics, equality, and fairness. Must be awfully lonely sitting so high above us mere mortals.


----------



## splashdash

Troopers Mom said:


> Up until just two years ago, there were no limits. One club was given the okay and then everyone jumped on the band wagon. What is one to think? It's rampant now.


If you lived here and had run our tests previously you might realize that we have never had more than 2 flights of master, even before limits and that we do not have the water available to offer another flight.


----------



## JoeOverby

Migillicutty said:


> You are quite the presumptuous one one aren't you? Guess you have the market cornered on ethics, equality, and fairness. Must be awfully lonely sitting so high above us mere mortals.


I'm not presumptuous at all. This argument just gets really damn old. Every week it's the pros fault for taking all the spots. This no child left behind argument just gets really, really old. The facts are this...3 years ago this problem didn't exist. Now, what changes happened in the last 36 months?? I'm not saying it was perfect before BUT, people didn't get shut out of tests. I agree that changes need to be made but don't for one minute expect me to believe that the world is full of dudley do rights. It's not about fair...it's about preferential. If it was about fair then the argument wouldn't be for or against a certain group of people...the argument would be for or against what is actually broken. Now put your bullet back in your pocket Barney...


----------



## Mastercaster

Willie Alderson said:


> What if they changed the regs on entering a dog on EE. Take away the "VIP" perk and make the owners of the dogs sign up. If the owner forgets to sign up or sign up too late, they miss that test. I wasn't fully aware of the VIP entering system, I commented earlier on this post saying it wasn't the fault of EE. Maybe it is. If everyone has a level playing field signing up, then at least everyone has a chance.


This, and publicly communicating the EE opening, will go a long way towards the fairness issue (IMHO).


----------



## downbirds

I'm sorry I misread that and didn't read it as thoroughly as I should. But I still think if they scratch prior to paying they save the 4.50 but then again I may be wrong on that to. Won't be the first or last time. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## BJGatley

It appears that technology is going to fast...somehow it needs to slow down so that we can catch up.


----------



## JKOttman

downbirds said:


> I'm sorry I misread that and didn't read it as thoroughly as I should. But I still think if they scratch prior to paying they save the 4.50 but then again I may be wrong on that to. Won't be the first or last time. Thanks for the correction.


Most of the $4.50 is for the credit card company processing, thus it doesn't make sense to refund that amount.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> I'm not presumptuous at all. This argument just gets really damn old. Every week it's the pros fault for taking all the spots. This no child left behind argument just gets really, really old. The facts are this...3 years ago this problem didn't exist. Now, what changes happened in the last 36 months?? I'm not saying it was perfect before BUT, people didn't get shut out of tests. I agree that changes need to be made but don't for one minute expect me to believe that the world is full of dudley do rights. It's not about fair...it's about preferential. If it was about fair then the argument wouldn't be for or against a certain group of people...the argument would be for or against what is actually broken. Now put your bullet back in your pocket Barney..


Joe since you brought it up maybe you should list these changes..


----------



## Brad B

Troopers Mom said:


> Brad, if you would have read the rest you would have seen that my Pro didn't get any of his other dogs in. Do you think he will make the trip for 1 dog? I'm not happy because unlike a lot of others, I don't just think about myself. I'm thinking about everyone that didn't have a chance. And it seems to be the same ones that lose out time and time again. I think limits for limits sake is killing the sport. I know I am getting pretty damn fed up.


I did read the rest, several times. And just for the record, the club isn't limiting entries just for limits sake.


----------



## captainjack

Knowing how fast MH tests are filling up, how many people do you think would enter a test that they are not 100% sure they will run if it opened up four months in advance? Maybe they previously considered it too too far to drive, maybe they're not sure than can get time off from work, or maybe they're not sure they'll need those passed to title or qualify.

I know I've done that. The reason is that you can't be sure you'll get into the 2 or 3 test happen in the next 2 months closer to home. If I get in the tests closer to home, I scratch the other. Multiply that times 30 and you'll see the impact. I'm not a pro nor a VIP customer, and I'd say that lots of the folks that do that aren't either. They're 1 or 2 dog amateurs.

I know many clubs that had to split flights under the old policy were ending up with only a few dogs over the split number (65, 125, 185, etc). In fact, as a handler watching entries, I'd root for the 125 dogs, so that could run in a 42 dog flight rather than a 60 dog flight. Judges can focus more on the quality of the test rather than how quickly they can run it, and I hate sitting around all day waiting to run. This was another factor in clubs wanting limits. A profitable or break-even 120 dog test turns into a money loser as a 125 dog test with the extra expense of bringing in another pair of judges and possibly paid help.

So, I believe that much of the demand beyond current supply is artificial. As such , the conflicting tests, not opening events for entry 4-5 months on advance, and making it 3/3, 5/6, etc to Qual for the mn (demand side solutions) would go along way to solving the problem.


----------



## Doug Main

captainjack said:


> Knowing how fast MH tests are filling up, how many people do you think would enter a test that they are not 100% sure they will run if it opened up four months in advance? Maybe they previously considered it too too far to drive, maybe they're not sure than can get time off from work, or maybe they're not sure they'll need those passed to title or qualify.
> 
> I know I've done that. The reason is that you can't be sure you'll get into the 2 or 3 test happen in the next 2 months closer to home. If I get in the tests closer to home, I scratch the other. Multiply that times 30 and you'll see the impact. I'm not a pro nor a VIP customer, and I'd say that lots of the folks that do that aren't either. They're 1 or 2 dog amateurs.
> 
> I know many clubs that had to split flights under the old policy were ending up with only a few dogs over the split number (65, 125, 185, etc). In fact, as a handler watching entries, I'd root for the 125 dogs, so that could run in a 42 dog flight rather than a 60 dog flight. Judges can focus more on the quality of the test rather than how quickly they can run it, and I hate sitting around all day waiting to run. This was another factor in clubs wanting limits. A profitable or break-even 120 dog test turns into a money loser as a 125 dog test with the extra expense of bringing in another pair of judges and possibly paid help.
> 
> So, I believe that much of the demand beyond current supply is artificial. As such , the conflicting tests, not opening events for entry 4-5 months on advance, and making it 3/3, 5/6, etc to Qual for the mn (demand side solutions) would go along way to solving the problem.


But for EE policies. It wouldn't be a problem. But it's EE policy that no fee to scratch before the close And no waiting list. The clubs have no control over that. 

IMO that's just a small part of the problem. There's plenty of blame to go around. AKC, Master NAtional, Pros, clubs, everyone. 





It's just BS when 2 people can take up half the club's available entries. The race to get entered is stupid. Maybe the pros don't have an advantage, but the optics are very very bad!!! I judged Master for 2 clubs in the last 2 years, both had working members that could not get entered, at the same time, 2 pros were able to get more than 60 dogs entered, which was over half the master entries. I myself tried to get entered in about 25 master tests in the last two years and was not able to get entered because they were full. 

It's a lot different problem than the large FTs were because unlike the FT problem the pain is not born equally. The clubs and 1 or 2 dog ams are bearing the brunt of the problem. The Big pro dog trucks are still getting their dogs entered. 

Those large pro trucks are the ones that are most able to put on conflicting tests. It was the PRTA pros that put on the conflicting FTs that helped ease the FT problem. 

AKC needs to allow Master only tests to make it easy for conflicting tests. It would make things a lot easier for conflicting tests. For example, I could hold a single flight master only test on my 30 acres. I would assume almost any pro has the ability to host a single flight master test on their own training grounds. No need for other grounds close as no other stakes are running.


----------



## JoeOverby

Todd Caswell said:


> Joe since you brought it up maybe you should list these changes..


Todd we both know good and we'll that 3 years ago limits didn't exist and the qualification was different. I've voiced my opinion on this several times before...I'm tired of arguing about it. Pros didn't do it. EE didn't do it. Yet somehow it's their fault??? That's an intelligent argument.


----------



## Criquetpas

Too simple Doug for folks to figure out. The technocrats want some big hullabalu, with a bunch of technical statutes of administrative rules and regulations. You have and I have, seen numbers increase since the AKC hunt tests inception ten fold. This is a mere bump in the road in the big scheme of things. Break it down as you suggest, get the Hunt Test Pros more involved such as the PRTA, cut down the distance more then it is already is for conflicting stakes..I realize the field trial game has gone to Opens only, Derbies/Quals, some clubs have moved from the Mid-West to the South to accommodate the winter trial folks etc. Obviously there is a difference between the entry of looking for placements vrs standards of passing, but, there are some similarities ..The Clubs can play a more active role. I have been on the Board of three retriever clubs. At one point solicited the AKC about having two stakes, major and minor,was told we couldn't discriminate against the pros ie; amat/qual or derby. Club went to a Open/Derby and was blessed by the AKC. The AKC sanctioned clubs do have input. Example one very old Club,the West Allis Training Kennel Club, just got their request granted for a change of dates for their hunt test from the end of April to July 18 with a Senior/Master only. Get involved with your local clubs, and pressure the Boards to take some type of action rather the the bureaucracy of the AKC.. I think the problem will resolve itself.


----------



## Dazed

Troopers Mom said:


> Brad, if you would have read the rest you would have seen that my Pro didn't get any of his other dogs in. Do you think he will make the trip for 1 dog? I'm not happy because unlike a lot of others, I don't just think about myself. I'm thinking about everyone that didn't have a chance. And it seems to be the same ones that lose out time and time again. I think limits for limits sake is killing the sport. I know I am getting pretty damn fed up.



Volunteering and attending tests last year with 1-3 flights of 60 dogs each, I totally understand the reason for limits. 
Size/availability of the training grounds. The FT and Upland folks are running tests too.
length of time it took to run the tests. We were lucky to get off the grounds by 6pm on sunday nite. Helping with tear down, more like 7-8. Hard to do if one has to work on Monday.
judges need adequate time to get back to their hotel, check out and hit the road, as they often times have jobs too.

As far as being frustrated, try training your dog yourself 3-5 days a week, and be shut out by pro's with numerous dogs entered. That's frustration!


----------



## Swampcollie

The system has to change for limited entry master tests. If you published a premium that stated “you have 180 seconds to enter this event” people would think you were nuts, but that is exactly what is happening with the entry process at this time. A minimal delay in your internet connection while one router talks to another is enough to prevent you from getting entered in a test, let alone those poor souls that still have DSL or dial up.


Folks that is just plain and simply unacceptable. 


It's time to end the race to enter and go to a random draw so people have a fair opportunity to even get their dogs name in the hat.


----------



## TRUEBLUE

I will preface these questions by stating I do not run hunt tests. My questions are, if the trials fill up in the first 10 minutes the entries open on entry express, how are the pros able to enter and not owners running there own dogs?
Are the pros finding out when the trials open when others are not?
Would it help if the owners were required to enter the dog, and not have the pros enter 30 dogs all at once with the push of one button?
Also, since the pros are running 20-30 dogs at the trial, are they bringing bird throwers with them to help out the club holding the trial?
It is interesting to read that the club members working the trials are not able to enter there dogs.


----------



## Doug Main

Criquetpas said:


> Too simple Doug for folks to figure out. . . . . . . You have and I have, seen numbers increase since the AKC hunt tests inception ten fold. . . . . I think the problem will resolve itself.


Earl, 

Yea, the numbers have increased substantially, especially Master. The 1st HT I ran was at Madison, in 1991. There were 3 flights of Junior dogs and only about 35 master dogs total. Most of the Master dogs were being run by amateurs. 

The most amazing part to me is the huge increase in the number of dogs being run by Pros. In today's Opens, there's a higher percentage of the dogs being run by amateurs than in a typical Master test! 600 dogs ran the master national last year and it was in California!!!! The numbers are mind boggling!! Anyone that doesn't see that the MN is a big part of the problem is delusional! 

I hope you are right about it getting resolved. I don't have a lot of faith myself.


----------



## Dave Mirek

TRUEBLUE said:


> I will preface these questions by stating I do not run hunt tests. My questions are, if the trials fill up in the first 10 minutes the entries open on entry express, how are the pros able to enter and not owners running there own dogs?
> Are the pros finding out when the trials open when others are not?
> Would it help if the owners were required to enter the dog, and not have the pros enter 30 dogs all at once with the push of one button?
> Also, since the pros are running 20-30 dogs at the trial, are they bringing bird throwers with them to help out the club holding the trial?
> It is interesting to read that the club members working the trials are not able to enter there dogs.



I think that a big concern of the current issue is that the EE opening time is not posted for several tests, and the host club won't openly offer this information but yet there are several pros that are the first or second entry (which is actually entries 1-30). I would love to know the secret, please share in a PM if you have it &#55357;&#56836;


----------



## Criquetpas

Doug Main said:


> Earl,
> 
> Yea, the numbers have increased substantially, especially Master. The 1st HT I ran was at Madison, in 1991. There were 3 flights of Junior dogs and only about 35 master dogs total. Most of the Master dogs were being run by amateurs.
> 
> The most amazing part to me is the huge increase in the number of dogs being run by Pros. In today's Opens, there's a higher percentage of the dogs being run by amateurs than in a typical Master test! 600 dogs ran the master national last year and it was in California!!!! The numbers are mind boggling!! Anyone that doesn't see that the MN is a big part of the problem is delusional!
> 
> I hope you are right about it getting resolved. I don't have a lot of faith myself.


I forget sometimes we have very large clubs that I am a member, with private grounds, cross-over folks from hunt test to field trials and vice versa. Wisconsin Amateur, Madison, WestAllis,Manitowoc , farther North Blackhawk, the clubs put on field trials and hunt tests..Also, strictly AKC hunt test clubs like Island View and Fox Valley..Your club does a "heavy duty" workload with smaller numbers of members. I think, perhaps, in other regions they have the same issues and it must be very frustrating to work your butt off and not even get entered with your own dogs as club members. Maybe too "rose collared" glasses on my part. I have only dabbled in hunt tests over the years and was much more active in field trials, where eventually the problems were resolved by near implosions inside the clubs. I do believe a great burden of the responsibility is at the feet of the various clubs though, with lack of action, and acting as a cash register for the coffers .. In the early years the hunt tests were mostly a amateur game, including the Master National. Now everyone has a "shingle out" with a I am a professional dog trainer and many are very competent trainers. If you can afford it a lot cheaper to part-time train your dog, and have a Pro do the heavy lifting, at the qualification level for the Master National. Field trials have always been tough, you kinda get used to losing , Pro trains your dog during the week, you run the all-age on the weekend including the Open. It's all about the "big time" now if you can afford it, field trial or hunt test.


----------



## DoubleHaul

captainjack said:


> I know many clubs that had to split flights under the old policy were ending up with only a few dogs over the split number (65, 125, 185, etc). In fact, as a handler watching entries, I'd root for the 125 dogs, so that could run in a 42 dog flight rather than a 60 dog flight. Judges can focus more on the quality of the test rather than how quickly they can run it, and I hate sitting around all day waiting to run. This was another factor in clubs wanting limits. A profitable or break-even 120 dog test turns into a money loser as a 125 dog test with the extra expense of bringing in another pair of judges and possibly paid help.


This is part of the problem, IMO. The split limits are arbitrary and out of the hands of the clubs. Many clubs could easily handle say 80 dogs in two days but simply don't have the grounds to split MH. If the clubs were allowed, short of limiting, to select the level that they think they could put on a test without a split, you would see more slots available for folks.


----------



## downbirds

Wild idea, say it's a 60 dog limit. as many dogs as want sign up. Then it closes on a Monday four weeks out. EE does a random shuffle like they do in FT's, then Tues they use the closing Dow number, like FT's, and that is the first dog and the first 60 are in. I know it isn't perfect, some may have one dog get in but not their other but all are on a level playing field to get in and no human influence involved.


----------



## captainjack

downbirds said:


> Wild idea, say it's a 60 dog limit. as many dogs as want sign up. Then it closes on a Monday four weeks out. EE does a random shuffle like they do in FT's, then Tues they use the closing Dow number, like FT's, and that is the first dog and the first 60 are in. I know it isn't perfect, some may have one dog get in but not their other but all are on a level playing field to get in and no human influence involved.


I proposed this (blind draw) on about page 2. I don't think the people making all the noise would submit to that even though it is the only thing that is actually fair to all when there aren't enough slots for everyone.


----------



## Thomas D

2 series and raise to 90 dog limit.


----------



## Karen Klotthor

SWIPER said:


> Simple answers, ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm CST, No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs. If a test opens and closes in 15 mins. everyone had the same chance to enter. Move to the next test.


I have said this same thing before. Make it fair to everyone, Dog owner must enter dog, not handler. That way one or 2 dogs at the most will be entered at once. All fees are to be paid up front.


----------



## Thomas D

What if a pro is part owner of 20 dogs?


----------



## fuchsr

Which, by the way, is the system used to control entries in AKC tracking events. Similar problems: small clubs, tests need a lot of land. Typically only enough space for 4 or 5 tracks but often 15 or more entries.


----------



## captainjack

fuchsr said:


> Which, by the way, is the system used to control entries in AKC tracking events. Similar problems: small clubs, tests need a lot of land. Typically only enough space for 4 or 5 tracks but often 15 or more entries.


What is the system? Blind draws, owner enters their own dogs?, ...


----------



## Karen Klotthor

Thomas D said:


> What if a pro is part owner of 20 dogs?


He can enter them but he needs to pay than and there not VIP program. We have to tie our money up so they should to.


----------



## JS

All the random draws, limits on entering dogs with one click, standardized openings, etc., etc., etc., will make things a little more fair. And "fair" is a good thing.

But in the end, there will still be the same number of folks who didn't get entered. Fair or not, all you are accomplishing is satisfying some and shifting the complaints to a different group. That may be an improvement, especially in the view of those now complaining, but is that all we want to accomplish?

Since we're all dreaming ... as if any of this stuff will actually happen ... why aren't we dreaming up ways to solve the real problem. Like ways to provide more Master test opportunities; creating more tests.

* requiring a club to offer one flight per year that is NOT a MN qualifier for every flight they offer that is a MN qualifier.

* separating Master tests for titled dogs from those for untitled dogs.

If we tried hard enough brainstorming solutions that would provide more "slots" ... and giving the clubs some relief from some of the restrictions they now have, to help make that possible ... we might come up with some ideas for long term improvement in the system.

JS


----------



## Swampcollie

> * separating Master tests for titled dogs from those for untitled dogs.


Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.


The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.


----------



## Nate_C

Swampcollie said:


> Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.
> 
> 
> The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.



I think that would be a cool idea. Have a MH and MHCH. MHCH would require 4 passes if already a MH. 2 passes out of 4 would be what gets you into the MN. And make them hard. Require a Quad, at double blind....ect..... So that most Clubs would have JR, SR, MH, MHCH.


----------



## JS

Swampcollie said:


> Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.
> 
> 
> The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.





Nate_C said:


> I think that would be a cool idea. Have a MH and MHCH. MHCH would require 4 passes if already a MH. 2 passes out of 4 would be what gets you into the MN. And make them hard. Require a Quad, at double blind....ect..... So that most Clubs would have JR, SR, MH, MHCH.



LVL ... Where are you!?!?!?!?!?

If you know LVL, ur too old to vote. ;-)

JS


----------



## Swampcollie

JS said:


> LVL ... Where are you!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> If you know LVL, ur too old to vote. ;-)
> 
> JS



I must be right there with Methuselah.;-)


----------



## DoubleHaul

Swampcollie said:


> Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.
> 
> 
> The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.


This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.

I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.


----------



## Moose Mtn

I do think the situation is sad... We have a sport that is growing and expanding.. People WANT to enter and cant do so:

I do think Clubs need to become more vocal.. Express their needs to the public. For one of the Clubs I am a member of, the limitiations are hands down Help. We need more help to pull these tests off. But instead of just asking our membership to volunteer... I think if we have a pro with lots of dogs entered.. it only makes sense to call that pro up, explain that the club needs help, and suggest that The pro bring a bird boy, shooter or whatever is needed. 

I am also in favor of raising the costs if that is the limiting factor. Lets face it, Some super nice venues have a high cost to use that facility for a hunt test... I see no reason why entry fees cannot reflect that.


----------



## JS

Moose Mtn said:


> I do think the situation is sad... We have a sport that is growing and expanding.. People WANT to enter and cant do so:
> 
> I do think Clubs need to become more vocal.. Express their needs to the public. For one of the Clubs I am a member of, the limitiations are hands down Help. We need more help to pull these tests off. But instead of just asking our membership to volunteer... *I think if we have a pro with lots of dogs entered.. it only makes sense to call that pro up, explain that the club needs help, and suggest that The pro bring a bird boy, shooter or whatever is needed. *
> 
> I am also in favor of raising the costs if that is the limiting factor. Lets face it, Some super nice venues have a high cost to use that facility for a hunt test... I see no reason why entry fees cannot reflect that.


Has anyone ever asked them? Formally?

I know some already do help out on their own. I think more would if they were leaned on just a little. After all, they have an interest in the future of the game, maybe more so than the rest of us.

In Field Trials, most pros are more than willing to routinely provide help.

JS


----------



## Terry Britton

DoubleHaul said:


> This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.
> 
> I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.


A new level of realistic hunt test would be fun. 400 yard marks on live flyer quail for land marks. Utilize dove and quail on land blinds. Maybe utilizing magnum geese and teal size ducks on water marks. Just include stuff that I have had my previous dog do on real hunts.


----------



## Swampcollie

JS said:


> Has anyone ever asked them? Formally?


Actually yes we have asked in the past and there was no help forthcoming from the Pro's. We've had far more success in having our amateur members hire there own bird boys and bring them to work at a test.


----------



## Nate_C

DoubleHaul said:


> This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.
> 
> I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.


That is why you would need to make the passes lower. a MH with 2 passes would be plenty I think.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> I proposed this (blind draw) on about page 2. I don't think the people making all the noise would submit to that even though it is the only thing that is actually fair to all when there aren't enough slots for everyone.


Once again Captain jacks off on his facts.
You have claimed that EE is fairer than any thing else
You claimed that your post 41 was the definitive answer to this issue, and taunted that no one could refute your post 41, or would accept a random draw.
Below is my post 91 rebuttal to your post 41 {which is quoted in red}

Glen you aren't that obtuse. Your friendship with David may be clouding your ability to see facts. What you fail to see is that I'm not opposed to EE. Quite the contrary, I love the concept of it. My first FC-AFC dog was in the seventies, so I have much experience with the old way. EE was a life saver, and huge boon to FT secretaries and clubs. However there is an inherent unfairness in the VIP program which needs to be rectified.

Here is your precious post 41 {in red} that I haven't responded to because it is so obviously a better option than what Joe newcomer is stuck with now


So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered. 

So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...

1. Accept an unlimited number of entries. 

2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots.

3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in. 

There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't bemore simple or fair. 

Make it happen TRC.

In your post 41 solution Joe newcomer { AND EVERYBODY!!!!} has an equal chance of getting entered/ 240/300 = 80%

With the two inherent unfairness factors Joe newcomer deals with now his chances dwindle towards 0%

Inequity #1; If the test opens and fills before he even knows about it then his chances are in fact 0%

Inequity #2 If he manages to be online at the time the test opens, but is not a VIP member then by the time he enters his info most of if not all of the slots could be taken by VIP members who can enter as many dogs as they like instantaneously

So tell me Glen what is a fairer option for all, and a better option for Joe Newcomer the 80% chance your post 41 gives everybody or the present situation where some EE VIP's have a 100% chance of entering as many as they like, which leaves Joes chances at or near 0%

You have yet to address my rebuttal to your supposed "FIX" of post 41.
Instead you sent me an outrageous PM in which you called me a Jack ass a few times as well as a dumb ass and a worthless piece of ****. You stated that David didn't need you to fight his battles. You also guaranteed me that if you see me in person that you would hurt me while you were wearing a skirt. While most of your rant was aimed at me, in fairness you did also manage to insult the entire HT community by calling them crying babies and dumb asses
That was quite revealing as to your class, but failed to address the MH entry issues of this thread.
Although you chastised me to "stick to the topic on the forum you worthless POS"; you must realize that this thread was started by me. As such I framed the topics of the thread, which is FAIRNESS; not whether everybody should just run FT's. After all Glen likes FT's better than HT's!!! Or whether you could wave a magic wand and magically increase finite resources & supply thereby magically eliminating the problem,........ or anything else.

At first I assumed you realized your post 41 wasn't the panacea or "FIX" you claimed it to be, so you would just go away and leave the discussion to those more rational than you. But alas that didn't happen as you have since made a dozen or so posts on this thread, that are consistent in their failure to address the rebuttal I offered above or the fairness issue of the VIP program and heads up as to opening times.
You keep claiming that nobody would submit to a blind draw idea. Is your reading comprehension so poor that you don't realize that everyone who has responded has stated that they would welcome that equal chance for all over the biased system we now have? 
If you can't stick to the topic why don't you keep sticking up for David on the EE thread. Better still why don't you get David to come on and answer some questions? Or do as you did last year when you dramatically announced that you were leaving RTF. You acted like a hurt, spoiled child who took his ball and went home. I now understand why so many were glad to see you go. Rest assured we can get along just fine without you

Although I am not one to give fashion advice, particularly to a possible cross dresser, I would think that you may be better served by wearing culottes or a skort when we meet. In view of your delicate sensibilities, I could envision you getting quite embarrassed if your doughy thighs and soiled panties might get exposed while you attempted to hurt me


----------



## fishduck

JS said:


> Has anyone ever asked them? Formally?
> 
> I know some already do help out on their own. I think more would if they were leaned on just a little. After all, they have an interest in the future of the game, maybe more so than the rest of us.
> 
> In Field Trials, most pros are more than willing to routinely provide help.
> 
> JS


I don't know how formally it was done. But pros have been asked. In my experience they are willing to help & do whatever they can.


----------



## Karen Klotthor

Mark, the pros is not the real issue here. Yes they help, not doubt about it. I know of a few that run the hunts, but the real issue the VIP program. If all had to put up their money several months in advance like the we do, than the field levels out a little better. With the VIP program they can enter all the hunts than at the last minute scratch dogs and never have paid a penny toward them. From my understanding they only pay the 4.50 on the scratched dogs. The problem is if all had to pay up front, they would not be signing so many dogs that far in advance and have to pay their credit cards off before the hunts. 
I will continue to say, if only the owner can enter the dog, it will slow the process down, and more individual handlers have time to put their CC info in the system at the same time the one owner is entering their one dog. When you hit a button and enter 20 or more dogs at one time, the single handler has less of change of getting in. According to AKC rules, that is discrimination .


----------



## Bubba

mjh345 said:


> Once again Captain jacks off on his facts.
> You have claimed that EE is fairer than any thing else
> You claimed that your post 41 was the definitive answer to this issue, and taunted that no one could refute your post 41, or would accept a random draw.
> Below is my post 91 rebuttal to your post 41 {which is quoted in red}
> 
> Glen you aren't that obtuse. Your friendship with David may be clouding your ability to see facts. What you fail to see is that I'm not opposed to EE. Quite the contrary, I love the concept of it. My first FC-AFC dog was in the seventies, so I have much experience with the old way. EE was a life saver, and huge boon to FT secretaries and clubs. However there is an inherent unfairness in the VIP program which needs to be rectified.
> 
> Here is your precious post 41 {in red} that I haven't responded to because it is so obviously a better option than what Joe newcomer is stuck with now
> 
> 
> So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered.
> 
> So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...
> 
> 1. Accept an unlimited number of entries.
> 
> 2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots.
> 
> 3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in.
> 
> There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't bemore simple or fair.
> 
> Make it happen TRC.
> 
> In your post 41 solution Joe newcomer { AND EVERYBODY!!!!} has an equal chance of getting entered/ 240/300 = 80%
> 
> With the two inherent unfairness factors Joe newcomer deals with now his chances dwindle towards 0%
> 
> Inequity #1; If the test opens and fills before he even knows about it then his chances are in fact 0%
> 
> Inequity #2 If he manages to be online at the time the test opens, but is not a VIP member then by the time he enters his info most of if not all of the slots could be taken by VIP members who can enter as many dogs as they like instantaneously
> 
> So tell me Glen what is a fairer option for all, and a better option for Joe Newcomer the 80% chance your post 41 gives everybody or the present situation where some EE VIP's have a 100% chance of entering as many as they like, which leaves Joes chances at or near 0%
> 
> You have yet to address my rebuttal to your supposed "FIX" of post 41.
> Instead you sent me an outrageous PM in which you called me a Jack ass a few times as well as a dumb ass and a worthless piece of ****. You stated that David didn't need you to fight his battles. You also guaranteed me that if you see me in person that you would hurt me while you were wearing a skirt. While most of your rant was aimed at me, in fairness you did also manage to insult the entire HT community by calling them crying babies and dumb asses
> That was quite revealing as to your class, but failed to address the MH entry issues of this thread.
> Although you chastised me to "stick to the topic on the forum you worthless POS"; you must realize that this thread was started by me. As such I framed the topics of the thread, which is FAIRNESS; not whether everybody should just run FT's. After all Glen likes FT's better than HT's!!! Or whether you could wave a magic wand and magically increase finite resources & supply thereby magically eliminating the problem,........ or anything else.
> 
> At first I assumed you realized your post 41 wasn't the panacea or "FIX" you claimed it to be, so you would just go away and leave the discussion to those more rational than you. But alas that didn't happen as you have since made a dozen or so posts on this thread, that are consistent in their failure to address the rebuttal I offered above or the fairness issue of the VIP program and heads up as to opening times.
> You keep claiming that nobody would submit to a blind draw idea. Is your reading comprehension so poor that you don't realize that everyone who has responded has stated that they would welcome that equal chance for all over the biased system we now have?
> If you can't stick to the topic why don't you keep sticking up for David on the EE thread. Better still why don't you get David to come on and answer some questions? Or do as you did last year when you dramatically announced that you were leaving RTF. You acted like a hurt, spoiled child who took his ball and went home. I now understand why so many were glad to see you go. Rest assured we can get along just fine without you
> 
> Although I am not one to give fashion advice, particularly to a possible cross dresser, I would think that you may be better served by wearing culottes or a skort when we meet. In view of your delicate sensibilities, I could envision you getting quite embarrassed if your doughy thighs and soiled panties might get exposed while you attempted to hurt me


And this friends and neighbors is what happens when 2 assholes collide.

Pretty shameful behavior from both of you regards

Bubba


----------



## Joe Brakke

Swampcollie said:


> Actually yes we have asked in the past and there was no help forthcoming from the Pro's. We've had far more success in having our amateur members hire there own bird boys and bring them to work at a test.


This came up at our club meeting to to formely/call and ask the Pro to bring help . My thoughts were, if they are a Pro they should know the game well enough to know any amount of help would be appreciated. Come-on-man.


----------



## fishduck

Karen Klotthor said:


> Mark, the pros is not the real issue here. Yes they help, not doubt about it. I know of a few that run the hunts, but the real issue the VIP program. If all had to put up their money several months in advance like the we do, than the field levels out a little better. With the VIP program they can enter all the hunts than at the last minute scratch dogs and never have paid a penny toward them. From my understanding they only pay the 4.50 on the scratched dogs. The problem is if all had to pay up front, they would not be signing so many dogs that far in advance and have to pay their credit cards off before the hunts.
> I will continue to say, if only the owner can enter the dog, it will slow the process down, and more individual handlers have time to put their CC info in the system at the same time the one owner is entering their one dog. When you hit a button and enter 20 or more dogs at one time, the single handler has less of change of getting in. According to AKC rules, that is discrimination .


I agree with this Karen. Just get a little riled up with the pro bashing.


----------



## Moose Mtn

Joe Brakke said:


> This came up at our club meeting to to formely/call and ask the Pro to bring help . My thoughts were, if they are a Pro they should know the game well enough to know any amount of help would be appreciated. Come-on-man.



Not always the case. My husband and I .. twice... have flown down to HT's in Texas... both times there to volunteer where needed.....and in neither case was our help needed. On another Occasion (and this can be verified by Mjh345) we offered to drive to Kansas City to help where needed, and called the Test secretary... and AGAIN our help was not needed.

Some Clubs are limited by help.. Some Clubs are limited by facilities, and other clubs just dont want to put on big tests... But not every club is the same.


----------



## P J

Essentially, EE needs to eliminate the VIP program. It discriminates against those of us with just a dog or two trying to run master tests. 

As Karen said, if only the owner could enter a dog it would slow the time to fill a test. Unless of course, you may start to see more co-owners.


----------



## Dan Wegner

JS said:


> All the random draws, limits on entering dogs with one click, standardized openings, etc., etc., etc., will make things a little more fair. And "fair" is a good thing.
> 
> But in the end, there will still be the same number of folks who didn't get entered. Fair or not, all you are accomplishing is satisfying some and shifting the complaints to a different group. That may be an improvement, especially in the view of those now complaining, but is that all we want to accomplish?
> 
> Since we're all dreaming ... as if any of this stuff will actually happen ... why aren't we dreaming up ways to solve the real problem. Like ways to provide more Master test opportunities; creating more tests.
> 
> * requiring a club to offer one flight per year that is NOT a MN qualifier for every flight they offer that is a MN qualifier.
> 
> * separating Master tests for titled dogs from those for untitled dogs.
> 
> If we tried hard enough brainstorming solutions that would provide more "slots" ... and giving the clubs some relief from some of the restrictions they now have, to help make that possible ... we might come up with some ideas for long term improvement in the system.
> 
> JS


Excellent post Jack! That is what I've been saying as well. Everyone is trying to put band-aids on all the peripheral effects without adressing the real problem. Supply either needs to increase or Demand must decrease. 

Supply is relatively fixed, due to grounds, help, etc. While I like the idea of splitting Master into separate divisions for titled and untitled dogs, that adds another stake and clubs with limitations on grounds or help may further decrease the offerings from a 90, 120 or 180 limit to 60 in each division and then entrants are worse off than they are now.

I think we need to focus on eliminating "artificial" demand caused by the annual qualification requirements for the Master National. If 900 - 1,000 dogs can qualify to enter it each year, is it really the prestigious event it was intended to be? I liked it when it was 5 passes in 7 attempts or 8 in total. Not many handlers that didn't make the 5 of 7 actually pursued the 8 passes. The current requirement is 6 passes in total, regardless of how many one enters. Some handlers are entering 8, 10 or more tests to get the 6. This is all artificial demand that prohibits others from entering limited tests. If we can influence the MNRC to change their requirements, the problem is resolved and the random draws and VIP stuff becomes less of an issue.


----------



## DoubleHaul

P J said:


> Essentially, EE needs to eliminate the VIP program. It discriminates against those of us with just a dog or two trying to run master tests.
> 
> As Karen said, if only the owner could enter a dog it would slow the time to fill a test. Unless of course, you may start to see more co-owners.


It really does not. Under the VIP program, pros can enter no faster than I can. Since I only have one dog that runs HTs, I only have one click to make under "My Dogs" and can actually enter faster.

There is the issue of extending credit but how is that different than what my credit card company does? If I enter a HT and scratch before the it closes or I pay my bill, like any VIP member I am out only the $4.50.

EE's VIP program is not the problem. If it were eliminated today, it would change absolutely nothing about HTs filling up too quickly. At first it was sort of funny that folks put on the tin foil hats and decided that EE was to blame, but really focusing on the one non-issue in the whole process is not productive.


----------



## Karen Klotthor

The big difference it would make is owner only entering is that owner more than likely only owns 1 dog and will enter that one. I doubt the pros would grow thru the trouble of becoming co-owners just to get a dog in. It would be up to the owner to get online and get pup registered. That way 20 people have time to get in instead of 20 dogs with one handler.


----------



## Migillicutty

DoubleHaul said:


> It really does not. Under the VIP program, pros can enter no faster than I can. Since I only have one dog that runs HTs, I only have one click to make under "My Dogs" and can actually enter faster.
> 
> There is the issue of extending credit but how is that different than what my credit card company does? If I enter a HT and scratch before the it closes or I pay my bill, like any VIP member I am out only the $4.50.
> 
> EE's VIP program is not the problem. If it were eliminated today, it would change absolutely nothing about HTs filling up too quickly. At first it was sort of funny that folks put on the tin foil hats and decided that EE was to blame, but really focusing on the one non-issue in the whole process is not productive.


You keep saying that but fail to realize that 3 pros sitting at the computer can fill 75% of the slots in about 2 minutes. This absolutely effects the speed at which these tests fill up. Maybe the actual click time isn't faster, but I would bet that if owners had to enter the tests wouldn't fill up quite as fast. However, I concede that it would still be very fast and certainly isn't a solution to the issue at hand. It is just one small factor exacerbating the bigger problem.


----------



## Migillicutty

Dan Wegner said:


> I think we need to focus on eliminating "artificial" demand caused by the annual qualification requirements for the Master National. If 900 - 1,000 dogs can qualify to enter it each year, is it really the prestigious event it was intended to be? I liked it when it was 5 passes in 7 attempts or 8 in total. Not many handlers that didn't make the 5 of 7 actually pursued the 8 passes. The current requirement is 6 passes in total, regardless of how many one enters. Some handlers are entering 8, 10 or more tests to get the 6. This is all artificial demand that prohibits others from entering limited tests. If we can influence the MNRC to change their requirements, the problem is resolved and the random draws and VIP stuff becomes less of an issue.


I agree, this is driven by the current MN requirements and the fact someone can run a dog 10 plus times to get qualified. That seems silly to me, and really is a dog that probably shouldn't be going to MN, but that is beside the point. The fact is a change in the requirements fixes the demand issue.


----------



## Troopers Mom

I still feel the VIP program is a problem. I had only 1 dog to enter and he was already in the system. All I had to do was click on him and my payment info and yet pros with 15 to 20 dogs were ahead of me and I started right at the open as well. Took me less than 3 minutes. They would have had to click at least 15 to 20 times to get each dog in so they must have some sort of pre-built script with all their dogs names on it and just click once. Totally not fair. I also don't think making only owners enter their dogs is fair either. Too much time spent in communicating. One time my Pro had to enter two of my dogs because I wasn't reachable when he needed me to enter them. 

Unfortunately, I don't think things are going to change for the better. EE is in business to make money. Pros are running a business. This is free enterprise AND EE is a monopoly. EE could care less about the little guy. Here's another issue. Since my dog was the only dog that got entered from my Pro's truck, does he take the time and expense to go and do I have to foot the travel expense alone? He's a Pro too, just not a BIG Pro on the VIP Program. He has a business to run for all his clients, just not me alone. I'm not complaining for just me as someone accused me of earlier. This is a problem that is affecting everyone except those on the VIP program. Sportsmanship is the issue here.


----------



## Todd Caswell

I don't see EE or the MN changing anything unless they start to see a loss of revenue, why would they..


----------



## John Gassner

Make things fair as in an even playing/entering field is the first step. I think a true open random draw is fair. A waiting list would help if a random draw is not used. 

Why not change the Master stake to just two series. A land series with at least two land marks and a water series with at least two water marks. At least triples for both series. No need for an automatic Land/Water series. Most three series tests have at least one cream puff series. By doing this, you could easily up the stake entries for a two day event to 75. 75 beats 60. Flame away.


----------



## jacduck

After much thought again. VIP is the problem.


----------



## Madluke

Todd Caswell said:


> I don't see EE or the MN changing anything unless they start to see a loss of revenue, why would they..


I'd also add AKC to that sentence. The fact that MNRC only addressed their own overcrowding issue and didn't acknowledge and ignored all member clubs concerns with overcrowding, qualifying and entry problems with their own survey pretty much proves the point. Although the MNRC, AKC and EE are separate and distinct entities and not collusive the many viable suggestions presented here illustrate the conflicts and difficulties to implement any solutions or getting one entity to act.

The clubs are the common denominator without a direct voice in all of this chaos but ultimately may be catalyst for the change of revenue you refer to.


----------



## wojo

Calibri (BoJohn Stracka	January 16, 2015
Retriever News Magazine President & Editor in Chief
Entry Express Board of Directors
3181 Timber Lane
Verona , WI 53593
[email protected] aol.com

I am writing in regards to the Entry Express VIP program. I would like to bring to your attention some abuses of the VIP program, due to changing conditions in the AKC Hunt Test program and the high demand for master level entries. Master level tests in many parts of the country are filing to capacity minutes after opening. Many of these tests are opening months in advance of the test date. At times, Entry Express users have only minutes to spare in filing in payment information prior to the test filling to capacity. These changing conditions and the high demand for master level hunt tests have led to the following abuses of the Entry Express VIP System:
- The entry process in today’s capacity constrained environment gives an unfair advantage in the physical processing of the entry to VIP members, allowing VIP users to enter events faster by not having to enter credit card information. While entering credit card information may only take minutes, at times this has been the difference between a VIP user entering a tests and regular user being shutout.
-The VIP system has been closed to new members, institutionalizing an exclusionary discriminatory process to those exclusive VIP Members. 
- Allowing VIP members to pay on a much more advantageous schedule is clearly discriminatory and in clear violation of AKC equality rules of entry. 
- The VIP system has been used to hold entry spots that is a clear violation of AKC rules and has stopped legitimate applications from entry into AKC approved Hunt Test.
-The VIP member can cancel an entry prior to closing without penalty while regular user will pay entry fees to Entry Express. This is a clear violation of AKC rules of entry.
-If a Hunt Test handler is not able to enter an AKC event due to the abuses of the VIP program, AKC rules allow for a complaint to be filed on the grounds of discrimination. The handler will have the right to request a formal hearing where the hosting club must prove that the complainant has not be discriminated against by entries submitted by VIP Members.
-The practice of reserving slots for months without payment is reserved to VIP members and is clearly discriminatory to regular handlers.
I respectfully urge you to review your VIP policies and make the equitable revisions necessary to the VIP system so that all handlers can enter AKC Hunt Tests on a level playing field. To my knowledge these VIP system abuses are only occurring in the AKC Hunt Test venue, so perhaps no changes to the VIP system is required in other venues. Allowing only single entry by the AKC registered owner or a random drawing as some AKC events utilized are examples of an entry systems that is fair for all. 
The Entry Express VIP system original intent to make the event entry process easier for high-volume handlers was never intended to discriminate. Unfortunately, due to changing circumstances unintended consequences are having a negative effect on the integrity of the program. 

Respectfully 
Ed Wojciechowski
1590 Tyson Road
Monticello,FL 32344
[email protected]
Cell 920-858-8140 Home 850-997-5880
dy)


----------



## mjh345

wojo said:


> Calibri (BoJohn Stracka January 16, 2015
> Retriever News Magazine President & Editor in Chief
> Entry Express Board of Directors
> 3181 Timber Lane
> Verona , WI 53593
> [email protected] aol.com
> 
> I am writing in regards to the Entry Express VIP program. I would like to bring to your attention some abuses of the VIP program, due to changing conditions in the AKC Hunt Test program and the high demand for master level entries. Master level tests in many parts of the country are filing to capacity minutes after opening. Many of these tests are opening months in advance of the test date. At times, Entry Express users have only minutes to spare in filing in payment information prior to the test filling to capacity. These changing conditions and the high demand for master level hunt tests have led to the following abuses of the Entry Express VIP System:
> - The entry process in today’s capacity constrained environment gives an unfair advantage in the physical processing of the entry to VIP members, allowing VIP users to enter events faster by not having to enter credit card information. While entering credit card information may only take minutes, at times this has been the difference between a VIP user entering a tests and regular user being shutout.
> -The VIP system has been closed to new members, institutionalizing an exclusionary discriminatory process to those exclusive VIP Members.
> - Allowing VIP members to pay on a much more advantageous schedule is clearly discriminatory and in clear violation of AKC equality rules of entry.
> - The VIP system has been used to hold entry spots that is a clear violation of AKC rules and has stopped legitimate applications from entry into AKC approved Hunt Test.
> -The VIP member can cancel an entry prior to closing without penalty while regular user will pay entry fees to Entry Express. This is a clear violation of AKC rules of entry.
> -If a Hunt Test handler is not able to enter an AKC event due to the abuses of the VIP program, AKC rules allow for a complaint to be filed on the grounds of discrimination. The handler will have the right to request a formal hearing where the hosting club must prove that the complainant has not be discriminated against by entries submitted by VIP Members.
> -The practice of reserving slots for months without payment is reserved to VIP members and is clearly discriminatory to regular handlers.
> I respectfully urge you to review your VIP policies and make the equitable revisions necessary to the VIP system so that all handlers can enter AKC Hunt Tests on a level playing field. To my knowledge these VIP system abuses are only occurring in the AKC Hunt Test venue, so perhaps no changes to the VIP system is required in other venues. Allowing only single entry by the AKC registered owner or a random drawing as some AKC events utilized are examples of an entry systems that is fair for all.
> The Entry Express VIP system original intent to make the event entry process easier for high-volume handlers was never intended to discriminate. Unfortunately, due to changing circumstances unintended consequences are having a negative effect on the integrity of the program.
> 
> Respectfully
> Ed Wojciechowski
> 1590 Tyson Road
> Monticello,FL 32344
> [email protected]
> Cell 920-858-8140 Home 850-997-5880
> dy)


Once again another Nice letter Ed.
Please let us know what response you get


----------



## Todd Caswell

The MN ( well intended from the start) as far as I can see it, is for the most part much to blame for the burden that is put on the clubs weekend HT, although I'm sure that was not the point from the beginning it has evolved to that and much more and they have done next to nothing to fix it and again why would they ??? They are making money hand over fist... All these suggestions make scence and try and fix the problem but bottom line the clubs are maxxed out in the # of events thay can handle, and the # of flights they can run, limits are the norm for some clubs and it will not change, they have no choice, what will change if this downward slide continues is the support from the club members that put on the tests, if they can't compete, over time they won't work. It will be a trickle down effect, when the clubs have no more workers then the clubs will be forced to drop the MN, maybe at that time the MN will rethink there long term effect they have had on the weekend events.


----------



## RockyDog

Its kind of a slow night here, so I did some rummaging around in the AKC's event statistics on MH titles and Retriever Results for MN qualifiers. There's some margin for error since I only used 5 of the breeds eligible to compete in retriever hunt tests (Chessies, Curly Coats, Flat Coats, Goldens and Labs), but the numbers are close enough for this discussion. In 2007, these five breeds earned 502 MH titles and Retriever Results reported that there were 316 dogs qualified for the Master National. In 2013, these breeds earned 681 MH titles and there were 837 dogs qualified for the Master National. The ratio of MH titles earned and dogs qualifying for the MN went from 63% in 2007 to 123% in 2013. I'm not a rocket scientist, but these numbers tell me that "fixing" Entry Express VIP is like putting a band-aid on a water hose. I believe the source of the problem is the Master National and it's qualification requirements. Someone more familiar than I can probably look at these numbers and guess when the MN requirements were tweaked. 


2007 2008 20092010 20112012 2013MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)316421515475742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%


----------



## fuchsr

captainjack said:


> What is the system? Blind draws, owner enters their own dogs?, ...


Sorry for being ambiguous: I meant to say it's random draw.


----------



## Margo Ellis

How many dogs that qualify actually go? I think there are still a lot of people hanging a hat on the "My dog qualified for the MN" then they don't go because that wasn't the goal. I am NOT taking away from the dogs that can achieve that but how many tests did it take to get there? I guess for me the goal is to finish my MH title. I don't want to go to the MN, personal choice, so I would not continue to run a dog that I have no desire to take to the MN. 
Random draw is what works for dogs going to other limited events why not this.


----------



## paul young

Margo Ellis said:


> How many dogs that qualify actually go? I think there are still a lot of people hanging a hat on the "My dog qualified for the MN" then they don't go because that wasn't the goal. I am NOT taking away from the dogs that can achieve that but how many tests did it take to get there? I guess for me the goal is to finish my MH title. I don't want to go to the MN, personal choice, so I would not continue to run a dog that I have no desire to take to the MN.
> Random draw is what works for dogs going to other limited events why not this.


In 2014, 603 dogs ran the test. 

The number of dogs in the test is not limited; if you qualify, you can enter. Random draw determines only the running order.


----------



## Dave Mirek

RockyDog said:


> Its kind of a slow night here, so I did some rummaging around in the AKC's event statistics on MH titles and Retriever Results for MN qualifiers. There's some margin for error since I only used 5 of the breeds eligible to compete in retriever hunt tests (Chessies, Curly Coats, Flat Coats, Goldens and Labs), but the numbers are close enough for this discussion. In 2007, these five breeds earned 502 MH titles and Retriever Results reported that there were 316 dogs qualified for the Master National. In 2013, these breeds earned 681 MH titles and there were 837 dogs qualified for the Master National. The ratio of MH titles earned and dogs qualifying for the MN went from 63% in 2007 to 123% in 2013. I'm not a rocket scientist, but these numbers tell me that "fixing" Entry Express VIP is like putting a band-aid on a water hose. I believe the source of the problem is the Master National and it's qualification requirements. Someone more familiar than I can probably look at these numbers and guess when the MN requirements were tweaked.
> 
> 
> 2007 2008 20092010 20112012 2013MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)316421515475742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%


Thanks for this info, this is great! Do you know if the information is available as to how many MH entries there were in each year?
Thanks


----------



## Nate_C

paul young said:


> In 2014, 603 dogs ran the test.
> 
> The number of dogs in the test is not limited; if you qualify, you can enter. Random draw determines only the running order.


This is an aberration because it was in CA this year. In 2015 it is in SC and I think there will be nearly 1000 dogs there.


----------



## Mike Perry

Nate_C said:


> This is an abortion because it was in CA this year. In 2015 it is in SC and I think there will be nearly 1000 dogs there.


Aberration. You might want to edit your post.

MP


----------



## Willie Alderson

The master national is growing FAST. A way to "catch up" with the demand of the MN could be to change the way dogs qualify. It seems to me that the majority owners of the 600+ dogs entered in last years event have all the money/time in the world...which is great for them. It won't matter where the event is located, how much the entry fee is...etc. They will find a way to get their dog entered. So why not make it a bigger deal? 

Make it similar to the college football playoffs and olympics. Have 4 "master regionals". The master regional replaces the now master national. Same requirements needed to qualify. 6 MH passes in a year. Dogs qualified can go to an annual, regional test. The test is judged against a standard anyway. Having a master regional dog (or whatever you want to call it) would be a BIG deal! Judges could be on a rotation and they cannot judge in their own region (example rule) blah blah blah...

Now for those that want to go further...a dog needs to pass 3 master regional tests in 3 years to qualify for the NEW master national (or whatever requirement is decided on) Similar to every 4 years in the Olympics...every 4 years is the Master National. 

I was one of those that my dog qualified for the 2014 MN but with my job and $ I was one of those that didn't go. Would I go if I could? Maybe. I think the entry fee is ridiculous, but I'm sure I would enjoy the experience. 

Make the "master regional" a big deal...and the master national a bigger deal. If people are willing to pay and travel...then why not? 

Just another silly idea...


----------



## Troopers Mom

The following is from an earlier post in a different thread right after the Master National in 2014. This will add to the information on the Master national of past years.

Here is a breakdown of the 2014 Master National. There seems to be a big inequity in number of dogs passed from one flight to another. I will preface this with the fact that my dog was in Flight D and he did pass. It was extremely tough but very well done. I know absolutely nothing about Flights B and C but the only thing I know about Flight A with such a greater margin of passes is that a number of dogs were called back to the second series with double handles thus creating more time constraints on getting to the end. That in itself was an inequity to the dogs in the other flights who were not called back due to the same or similar infractions. 


2014 Master National Results FlightTotalScratchesActualPass%A15081427754%B15151465437%C151101415841%D15121494631%Totals6032557823541%

Not exactly sure how many actually qualified to go to the Master National as their website says 824 as of 8/17/14 but the catalog states 830.

An additional comment is that I have had dogs qualify for the Master National 5 times but have only entered twice. I will further add that I have no intentions at least at this time to ever go again even though I have a number of dogs just trying to get the Master title and having trouble even getting entered. The Master National title does very little to benefit the dog. With stud dogs, its pretty much a laugh. People really look at stud dogs with FC before their name, not MNH after their name. Snobbish, I know, but pretty much fact.


----------



## RockyDog

Sadie & Ruby said:


> Thanks for this info, this is great! Do you know if the information is available as to how many MH entries there were in each year?
> Thanks



2007200820092010201120122013Number of Dogs Starting12,60613,06013,14015,37416,42417,84317,440MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)316421515475742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%

In 2007 there were 357 licensed events held. The number of events was 383 in 2013.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Troopers Mom said:


> Flight A with such a greater margin of passes is that a number of dogs were called back to the second series with double handles thus creating more time constraints on getting to the end. That in itself was an inequity to the dogs in the other flights who were not called back due to the same or similar infractions.


Maybe it was much harder so the judges felt justified in bringing back double handles. Judges do judge differently, which is why folks have been known to prefer some over others. It is not uncommon even in a weekend test to have very different pass rates. I am sure some folks here will blame it on EE but I don't think they do the draw for this one 



Troopers Mom said:


> The Master National title does very little to benefit the dog. With stud dogs, its pretty much a laugh. People really look at stud dogs with FC before their name, not MNH after their name. Snobbish, I know, but pretty much fact.


The only part of any of this that benefits the dog is that they get birds. They like that--especially flyers


----------



## Dave Mirek

RockyDog said:


> 2007200820092010201120122013Number of Dogs Starting12,60613,06013,14015,37416,42417,84317,440MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)31642151547742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%
> 
> In 2007 there were 357 licensed events held. The number of events was 383 in 2013.



Thanks, it would be great to see how many entries are available in a current year and how many are filled, across the country I would guess that it is well over 90%. This data might help understand the need for additional events or adjustments to the mileage rule for same weekend events. 

Thanks for the stats, this helps develop the true current state.


----------



## Bridget Bodine

The number of dogs starting , how is that number determined? Is that the number of MH entries?


RockyDog said:


> 2007200820092010201120122013Number of Dogs Starting12,60613,06013,14015,37416,42417,84317,440MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)31642151547742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%
> 
> In 2007 there were 357 licensed events held. The number of events was 383 in 2013.


----------



## RockyDog

I pulled the data for numbers of dogs starting and MH titles earned from the AKC statistics (http://www.akc.org/events/event_statistics.cfm). This is the number of dogs starting MH stakes at retriever hunt tests. My assumption from the wording is that it is dogs that actually started the event and excludes scratches. As I said earlier, I only included the MH title stats for five of the 19 breeds now eligible to run HTs. There may have been a handful of other breed dogs that earned a MH title in a year.


----------



## Bridget Bodine

Cool thanks!


RockyDog said:


> I pulled the data for numbers of dogs starting and MH titles earned from the AKC statistics (http://www.akc.org/events/event_statistics.cfm). This is the number of dogs starting MH stakes at retriever hunt tests. My assumption from the wording is that it is dogs that actually started the event and excludes scratches. As I said earlier, I only included the MH title stats for five of the 19 breeds now eligible to run HTs. There may have been a handful of other breed dogs that earned a MH title in a year.


----------



## Wade Thurman

Nate_C said:


> This is an aberration because it was in CA this year. In 2015 it is in SC and I think there will be nearly 1000 dogs there.


Does anyone else look at these numbers and shake their head, asking where is the credibility of the premier event being called a National? This is suppose to be the Hunt Test games Super Bowl, its World Series, or Stanley Cup. It looks to me more like the College Bowl season where nearly every college football team gets that elusive bowl bid.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Since we are tossing out numbers and I am an analysis nerd, I pulled the numbers from the 2014 season, from EE. I excluded specialty HTs and those which did not have a MH.

This gives a grand total in 2014 of 232 events where one could run a MH test and 21,686 dogs did (according to EE, so there may be some scratches missed) which works out to 93 dogs per event.

Of these 232 trials, only 39 had no limit. The average limit (total for the whole weekend, so includes doubles as well as singles) was 110 dogs. The most common limit was 60 with 76 events, followed by 120 with 71, 180 with 21 and 90 with 10. The limited tests allowed for total entries of 21,245 dogs and received entries for 18,579 dogs, for an average capacity factor, weighted by limit of 87%.

Within the various limits, the ones that seem to be the most capacity constrained are the 90 dog limit tests with a capacity factor of 95%, followed by 360 (big doubles mostly) at 94%. The 60 dog limits only fill at about 84% but this is skewed, since they tend to be a mix of HTs that don't get 60 anyway and the rest basically full. Of all the 60 dog limited tests, 60 dogs was by far the most common number entered with 44% of the dogs and 61% of the dogs entered in 60 dog tests had at least 55 dogs, which means they were probably full at closing.

The unlimited tests were also interesting. The majority of these tests tend to be ones that hardly pull any dogs so there is no reason to limit. Over 70% of these events got 90 dogs or less and less than 8% got over 180 dogs. Weighted by entries, 40% got less than 90 dogs and only 22% got more than 180 dogs.

Lots of other interesting things popped out just looking at it but I didn't have the time to do much. One thing that is clear is that the limits are very important to clubs. The clubs putting on events feel the need to impose a limit 83% of the time. If you take out the 23 HTs that didn't pull even 60 dogs from the unlimited entries you get less than 7% of all events that seem to be able to work without some sort of limit.

One thing that I believe that could quickly help increase capacity is for the AKC to drop the arbitrary limits of 60 and 90 dogs for a split. Many clubs could easily handle more than 60 dogs in a two day master or more than 90 for three. If the 60 dog split were abolished and the clubs felt that they could handle just 10 more dogs, that would translate to a 3.5% increase in capacity over just the 60 dog limited tests and some could do more. This would also affect the 71 tests that have 120 dog limits as they are largely a double MH with 60 dog limits on each. Perhaps not all could do it but if the arbitrary split mandate were eliminated and clubs were allowed to do what they felt they could handle with the available grounds and help, it would quickly increase capacity throughout.


----------



## Swampcollie

Wade said:


> Does anyone else look at these numbers and shake their head, asking where is the credibility of the premier event being called a National? This is suppose to be the Hunt Test games Super Bowl, its World Series, or Stanley Cup. It looks to me more like the College Bowl season where nearly every college football team gets that elusive bowl bid.


You're being far too kind. It's more like a weekend soccer match where every kid gets a participation trophy. 

A showcase for the elite master dog it is not.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> Does anyone else look at these numbers and shake their head, asking where is the credibility of the premier event being called a National? This is suppose to be the Hunt Test games Super Bowl, its World Series, or Stanley Cup. It looks to me more like the College Bowl season where nearly every college football team gets that elusive bowl bid.



That right there tells it all..................................................... You need to go to the root to fix the problem


----------



## Larry Housman

Swampcollie said:


> You're being far too kind. It's more like a weekend soccer match where every kid gets a participation trophy.
> 
> A showcase for the elite master dog it is not.


Depending on which flight you draw it's far less than every kid getting that trophy. And I think it is a showcase under my definition of the word, which is to exhibit or display something, not be a competition for that something. That said, the whole concept of coming up with an extra hard pass/fail hunt test has never made much sense to me. If you want that warm fuzzy that your dog is better than mine just run a field trial or SRS and prove it. The hunt tests were supposed to be for the amateur that could train his own dog to a very decent standard, but that is so far in the rear view mirror we may never see it again in AKC testing, but I like to see it mentioned from time to time, just to annoy the mini-field trial club.

And Double Haul, I think you are understating scratches by quite a few, because many secretaries don't bother to list scratches, they just put down passes so failures and scratches look the same. I've got two of those on my dog's EE record, and as a matter of fact I'm also down for going out in the first series of the 2012 MN when I was actually 900 miles away and had scratched two weeks earlier. I got my refund check so I didn't much care, but it just goes to show that you can't believe all the records.

And Wade, I take exception to your characterization of the MN as supposed to be the Super Bowl, World Series, etc. of Hunt Test games. Are we competing against each other to pick a winner or competing against a standard? Your analogy would indicate the former and I really think it should be the latter.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> And Wade, I take exception to your characterization of the MN as supposed to be the Super Bowl, World Series, etc. of Hunt Test games. Are we competing against each other to pick a winner or competing against a standard? Your analogy would indicate the former and I really think it should be the latter.


BUT------------ It really should showcase the best of the best not a pile of dog that "Qualified" by passing 6 tests out of god knows how many...... I say you have to have a 75% pass rate 3/4.. Oh wait that would take a whole bunch of money from 4 different souces, and that would never fly...


----------



## jacduck

Okay so Master Natnl is supposed to be the big problem not VIP... So if there were some changes to make it a really select group of dogs how about 

5 Master passes in fiscal year every year at 80% success 

Minimum of 10 total passes in career (would hold out the young hot shot dogs who really might be not ready

with a 75% pass rate in both to qualify for invitation.

And drop VIP at EE.


----------



## BJGatley

jacduck said:


> Okay so Master Natnl is supposed to be the big problem not VIP... So if there were some changes to make it a really select group of dogs how about
> 
> 5 Master passes in fiscal year every year at 80% success
> 
> Minimum of 10 total passes in career (would hold out the young hot shot dogs who really might be not ready
> 
> with a 75% pass rate in both to qualify for invitation.
> 
> And drop VIP at EE.


Now you are talking. Kudos big time. right on.


----------



## mjh345

jacduck said:


> And drop VIP at EE.


I believe this has been done. Thank you to all who had a hand in this
A blow for fairness has been struck.
Now we can worry about other issues to help the supply and demand equalize itself


----------



## BJGatley

mjh345 said:


> I believe this has been done. Thank you to all who had a hand in this
> A blow for fairness has been struck.
> Now we can worry about other issues to help the supply and demand equalize itself


Why would you say that? What is consider to be fair and with that to whom? Just saying. Are we here to make things or are we here to hinder. I really believe we all want in best interests and hopefully not in self interests. Just sayings.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Larry Housman said:


> And Double Haul, I think you are understating scratches by quite a few, because many secretaries don't bother to list scratches, they just put down passes so failures and scratches look the same. I've got two of those on my dog's EE record, and as a matter of fact I'm also down for going out in the first series of the 2012 MN when I was actually 900 miles away and had scratched two weeks earlier. I got my refund check so I didn't much care, but it just goes to show that you can't believe all the records.


In the data I pulled from EE, I would not have the scratches after the close for the tests, but these are usually not many. On our circuit it is maybe a few per flight--maybe none, since those fees are not refunded except for injury or dog in season. I suspect that holds true around the country, but if it doesn't it still doesn't change much.


----------



## Jay Dufour

I got a message from EE yesterday that said VIP cannot be used for AKC hunt tests from now on.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Jay Dufour said:


> I got a message from EE yesterday that said VIP cannot be used for AKC hunt tests from now on.


Problem solved. Those evil pros will not be able to stink up HTs and there will be slots aplenty for any amateur who wants to wait until 11:59 on the day of closing.:roll:


----------



## Dave Mirek

If EE is making changes to the VIP entries for HT are they making any other changes such as posting opening times or standardizing opening times? Did you receive notice from EE regarding the VIP change because you are a VIP member or was there a communication? I am only asking how they communicated this change as I am not a VIP member and have not heard of any changes. Curiosity is all from my end regarding if there are more changes to come. I think that EE is a great asset with the right policies and procedures in place, I am anxious to hear how they are going to help the situation as I truly believe they will.


----------



## captainjack

Sadie & Ruby said:


> If EE is making changes to the VIP entries for HT are they making any other changes such as posting opening times or standardizing opening times? Did you receive notice from EE regarding the VIP change because you are a VIP member or was there a communication? I am only asking how they communicated this change as I am not a VIP member and have not heard of any changes. Curiosity is all from my end regarding if there are more changes to come. I think that EE is a great asset with the right policies and procedures in place, I am anxious to hear how they are going to help the situation as I truly believe they will.


The clubs have always had complete control over when an event opens and whether or not the opening time is published. This does not require EE intervention. The AKC may want to establish standard times for opening an event for entries as well as require the opening time be published in the premium. They already have certain requirements for the premium so would fit the existing practice.


----------



## paul young

Jay Dufour said:


> I got a message from EE yesterday that said VIP cannot be used for AKC hunt tests from now on.



I think Wojo's letter to the AKC may have 'struck a nerve'..........

We probably won't be seeing events fill quite so fast now.-Paul


----------



## paul young

RockyDog said:


> Its kind of a slow night here, so I did some rummaging around in the AKC's event statistics on MH titles and Retriever Results for MN qualifiers. There's some margin for error since I only used 5 of the breeds eligible to compete in retriever hunt tests (Chessies, Curly Coats, Flat Coats, Goldens and Labs), but the numbers are close enough for this discussion. In 2007, these five breeds earned 502 MH titles and Retriever Results reported that there were 316 dogs qualified for the Master National. In 2013, these breeds earned 681 MH titles and there were 837 dogs qualified for the Master National. The ratio of MH titles earned and dogs qualifying for the MN went from 63% in 2007 to 123% in 2013. I'm not a rocket scientist, but these numbers tell me that "fixing" Entry Express VIP is like putting a band-aid on a water hose. I believe the source of the problem is the Master National and it's qualification requirements. Someone more familiar than I can probably look at these numbers and guess when the MN requirements were tweaked.
> 
> 
> 2007 2008 20092010 20112012 2013MH Titles Earned (5 breeds)502575548593703694681MN Qualifiers (all breeds)316421515475742909837Ratio MN Qualifiers to MH Titles Earned63%73%94%80%106%131%123%



Looking at these numbers, the dogs qualifying for the MN in 2013 accounted for about a third of all Master entries that year. Thanks for the data!-Paul


----------



## Karen Klotthor

captainjack said:


> The clubs have always had complete control over when an event opens and whether or not the opening time is published. This does not require EE intervention. The AKC may want to establish standard times for opening an event for entries as well as require the opening time be published in the premium. They already have certain requirements for the premium so would fit the existing practice.


And this is how it should be and should stay. No club should be on a time schedule of someone else. Until you have handled HTS and Hunt Chairman, you might not understand this. Sometime it just takes longer for clubs to get all finalized before opening. I am very glad the VIP program is gone. Even if a pro can enter 20 or more dogs at one time, they still need to put CC info in the system so will take just as much time as I do entering my 1 dog. It is a start, but as others have said, the MN needs to go back to a certain number of passes each year to qual.


----------



## Dave Kress

For everyone that believes a percentage of qualifications is needed let's discuss the past. 
Just a few years ago the 5 of 7 qualifications was tried for 2 or 3 years. 
Understand the concept of judge shopping became an art form. 
The sport still suffers today from some of the high completion rates experienced. Couple that with a popular vote to elect judges and there's a recipe for something 

Wow on the VIP program. Those folks paid by check so no CC fee. Wonder how you pick up that slack of lost margin. 
EE already was on the short end of the profit stick I wonder what this cost!
Dk


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

DoubleHaul said:


> Problem solved. Those evil pros will not be able to stink up HTs and there will be slots aplenty for any amateur who wants to wait until 11:59 on the day of closing.:roll:


Historically prior to limits those 20 dog handlers would wait until 11:59 on day of closing, causing splits; sometimes multiple splits; with a week for a club to deal with them. With limits it's doesn't matter if they wait until 11:59 closing. The only thing the elimination of the VIP program will do is make everyone have to put their money up front; it takes time to organize entry fees for multiple dogs. Still for a few tests it might not change a dang thing, but it puts the 20 dog handler on par with the single dog handler, simply because the money is up front. I wonder what kind've CC limit you'd need to stake 20+ dogs in multiple tests for 3-4 months, with the statement coming due every month? Might make a handler less prone to push a button on a dog they aren't sure will need the run.


----------



## captainjack

Quote Huntemup:
"The only thing the elimination of the VIP program will do is make everyone have to put their money up front; it takes time to organize entry fees for multiple dogs. Still for a few tests it might not change a dang thing, but it puts the 20 dog handler on par with the single dog handler, simply because the money is up front."

I'm fairly certain that the ht pro will simply use a CC and go ahead and bill his/her client the month of the entry rather than the month of the event so that the pro will not have any cash tied up. So that on par is actually no different than the former VIP.


----------



## phillip1119

If labor truly is the largest limiting factor, how difficult would it be to have an early entry (24 hours) open to ANYONE & EVERYONE willing to commit to working/providing assistance during the HT? Not just club members.....

Based on the numbers of volunteers garnered, the club could THEN accurately set limits on entries. 

It seems logical that volunteerism would increase significantly if said volunteers were given the opportunity to participate.

Just like everyone else, those with large numbers of dogs will simply need to bring help or get their clients involved if they would like to take advantage of the early entry.

IMO this is truly the most effective way to grow the sport..... VOLUNTEERISM!!!!


----------



## Karen Klotthor

Several clubs tried that last year, including my club. AKC will not let you open just for a select few, you can only ask that everyone wait for a few hours or the next day and let your club member enter. NO one cares who gets in as long as they do. I am the one the opened our hunt and by the time I got my CC infor in, there were at least 12 entries in that were pros and non members/workers. Even thru we only announced out openings to members word got passed. I know of several other clubs that tried and same results. Sometime honor system just does not work


----------



## DoubleHaul

phillip1119 said:


> If labor truly is the largest limiting factor, how difficult would it be to have an early entry (24 hours) open to ANYONE & EVERYONE willing to commit to working/providing assistance during the HT? Not just club members.....
> 
> Based on the numbers of volunteers garnered, the club could THEN accurately set limits on entries.
> 
> It seems logical that volunteerism would increase significantly if said volunteers were given the opportunity to participate.
> 
> Just like everyone else, those with large numbers of dogs will simply need to bring help or get their clients involved if they would like to take advantage of the early entry.
> 
> IMO this is truly the most effective way to grow the sport..... VOLUNTEERISM!!!!


First off, labor may be a limiting factor for some clubs, but for many it is access to grounds or even the profitability of having to add a second pair of judges and their associated expenses or whatever. Workers are appreciated but not always the issue. Second, the clubs already accurately set the limits--it is their club, grounds, workers and test, so whatever limit a club chooses is, by definition, accurate and it is the height of arrogance to suggest that they are wrong. Finally, why is showing up to provide assistance the magic ticket? There is a tremendous amount of work involved in putting on a HT or FT that takes place well in advance of when the handlers show up. Those folks don't get in while the guy who takes the birds from the drying rack and bags them for one re-bird does?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

captainjack said:


> Quote Huntemup:
> "The only thing the elimination of the VIP program will do is make everyone have to put their money up front; it takes time to organize entry fees for multiple dogs. Still for a few tests it might not change a dang thing, but it puts the 20 dog handler on par with the single dog handler, simply because the money is up front."
> 
> I'm fairly certain that the ht pro will simply use a CC and go ahead and bill his/her client the month of the entry rather than the month of the event so that the pro will not have any cash tied up. So that on par is actually no different than the former VIP.


With FT's I'd agree with you however, most pros don't enter FT until last week or so prior to close (when they know dogs are ready). Getting clients to commit to hunt test entries ahead of time is akin to pulling teeth; billing is usually the cycle after the close-test so handling fees, transport fees, etc. all go in at once, even then collecting $ can be hard; you can be out quite a bit of money for a significant period of time; waiting for clients to pay up. With the VIP program such didn't matter because no money was in play in till after a test; an entire month to bill clients, or prior to close scratch dogs, with clients not ready to commit the $$. If spots need to be held months in advance, most like without the VIP program the pro will ask handlers to put their own dogs in and not tie up a large amount of $$$, that they might need to continue operations, or wait until a week or so prior to sign-up for test, as they usually did in the past. If they need to wait to sign up the panic of (I can't get in) subsides; this panic is what's fueling 15min close of tests. If you watch most of those limited test that close early, lose a significant # of entries prior to close. EX there's a 90 that has been closed for months, it now has 10 spots open ~2 weeks prior to close, and I bet that falls. I've made other plans when it locked up otherwise I might've gone.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Dave Kress said:


> For everyone that believes a percentage of qualifications is needed let's discuss the past.
> Just a few years ago the 5 of 7 qualifications was tried for 2 or 3 years.
> Understand the concept of judge shopping became an art form.
> The sport still suffers today from some of the high completion rates experienced. Couple that with a popular vote to elect judges and there's a recipe for something


Good point, Dave. While I think that the change from 5 of 7 did contribute to the issue, it was not without its own issues. Certainly, folks were more reluctant to run dogs that may not be ready or running well while now it is less of a deal, but judge shopping did go on for sure. 

The popularity contest and campaigning to be a MNHT judge is also an interesting point. At least though with this system the clubs and presumably through them the grass roots HT folks get some input, contrasted with the FT system where the elite make all the decisions. Both have pluses and minuses, I guess.


----------



## captainjack

No pro can afford to enter twenty dogs in 5 tests and have that money tied up for months. Waiting until closer to the event is not an option because the event will be full or at least not have 20 slots for that pro. Thus, the client will need to pay when entered whether it be through the pro as I expect to happen, or by entering their own dogs. Nonetheless the vast majority of entries are non-VIP. I spoke recently with a non-VIP, 20 dog pro that got his dogs in the test that precipitated this thread. I expect there to be little or no difference in the folks getting closed out and never felt this addresses the problem of too many dogs for too few slots, or the issue of fairness. 
There are folks that still don't have high-speed internet... Never gonna be fair for them.


----------



## ChessieMom

I'm not an expert, but I haven't heard of this suggestion before, so I'll throw it out there. What about a lottery, like they do for turkey hunting licenses here in MN? The club could reserve "x" amount of spaces for their members, and then have "x" amount of spaces available for everyone else. You could allow entries for a certain amount of time...even if it was only a couple of days. Then do a drawing, where a limited amount of entries are chosen randomly. The winners could be contacted and have to submit payment immediately or forfeit their spot to the next dog in line. 

I can see where pros would probably be out of luck entering so many dogs at one time this way, but at least every individual dog would have the same chance at getting a spot. `


----------



## Granddaddy

The VIP Program as relates to AKC Hunting Tests has, in fact, been suspended. Time will show what all the verbiage to the contrary has failed to show - that the desire to enter a master stake will still be unavailable to some who desired to enter. Events will still fill up quicker than some can enter - and pros will still get most of the available slots. As someone mentioned in this thread, this action is much like putting a bandaid on a water hose as relates to the limited master stake. This condition will continue until such time as the stake loses it popularity or the AKC in concert with the Master National Club develop a better approach to qualifying for the Master National annual event where demand has been heightened by the change in qualification requirements and by introduction of the MNH title.

But from EE's prospective, there has never been any intent to provide advantage to anyone in the entry process - and we are confident the program provides no real entry advantage. The VIP Program was instituted for ONE PURPOSE, and that purpose was to find some means of avoiding credit card processing fees that are charged by merchant banks with each credit card transaction - and are EE's largest operational expense. During 2014, EE avoided over $27,000 in credit card processing fees through the VIP Program where users pay their entry fees via check. Despite some comments made here and in other threads, EE has not been a money-making venture. EE has incurred persistent financial losses for each of its operating years since its founding with the exception of the last two years when a near break even position has been achieved by streamlining operations & reducing personnel. Without the VIP Program, EE will now incur those credit card fees it has avoided through the VIP Program. As such, EE will likely be forced to pass along credit card processing fees to the clubs who in turn will likely increase their entry fees to cover those costs. The point being that EE's operating costs must be covered in order to provide its services and the VIP Program helped that process.

Other things that EE is in the process of developing are: 1) System changes to standardize when an event opens (date & time prior to the event) or least preventing an event to open more than so many days prior, 2) developing a public & visible waiting list from which entries will be filled automatically when an entry is scratched, 3) developing an online scratch capability to replace the current manual system, & 4) developing an approach whereby clubs can reserve a percentage of openings for workers in limited master stakes for a 24 hour period beginning with the opening of the event for entry. We hope to begin testing these changes within 30 days but we are NOT COMMITTING to when they will be implemented on the live system. I will just say we will implement them when they are completed, tested and ready.

These changes have been determined in discussions with the AKC, the RHTAC & direct user input. Those governing bodies & the MN Club may be planning other changes.

I am certain that EE's planned changes will help with the perception of fairness and openness in the entry process but I also believe these planned changes will have little effect on the real problem - supply and demand.

I'm going duck hunting. Enjoy the discussion.


----------



## Mike Perry

captainjack said:


> No pro can afford to enter twenty dogs in 5 tests and have that money tied up for months. Waiting until closer to the event is not an option because the event will be full or at least not have 20 slots for that pro. Thus, the client will need to pay when entered whether it be through the pro as I expect to happen, or by entering their own dogs. Nonetheless the vast majority of entries are non-VIP. I spoke recently with a non-VIP, 20 dog pro that got his dogs in the test that precipitated this thread. I expect there to be little or no difference in the folks getting closed out and never felt this addresses the problem of too many dogs for too few slots, or the issue of fairness.
> There are folks that still don't have high-speed internet... Never gonna be fair for them.


Do the math and you will see that any pro that is a decent business person will have no issue with the suspension of the VIP program. The entry issues are not the fault of EE.

20 dogs entered at $85 per dog = $1700
Total entry fee for a double Master = $3400

4 weekends in a month running a double each weekend = $13600

I bet there are very few that have a credit card that will not support $13600 over the course of a month. Of course add in travel and expenses and the total goes up, but it is manageable for sure.

I have 2 in my pocket now that have $30,000 limits and an Am Ex that has no limit. It would be a good bet that most contributors to this discussion can match that. 
They are not that hard to procure. Many if not most of us throw away several credit card offerings every week. Cash flow management is not that difficult for someone who is a decent business person and makes their clients stay current in payment.
As far as high speed internet, it only costs a couple bucks to go to an office type store and rent a high speed computer for the 5-10 minutes it takes to enter. 

IMO, the dead horse known as EE has been beaten enough.

MP


----------



## Karen Klotthor

David, thanks for your input. Glad to here EE will try to help the clubs with holding spots for the workers. I heard too many times from ours, that "If I cannot run I will not be there". As far as the Credit card fees, isn't part of the 4.50 we pay per dog per day to cover that. IF so you will now get more from all that have to enter online and not with a paper check. I was told that even if I was to take a chance and send a paper premium in with a check I would still have to pay the 4.50. * Was that not correct?*


----------



## captainjack

Mike Perry said:


> Do the math and you will see that any pro that is a decent business person will have no issue with the suspension of the VIP program. The entry issues are not the fault of EE.
> 
> 20 dogs entered at $85 per dog = $1700
> Total entry fee for a double Master = $3400
> 
> 4 weekends in a month running a double each weekend = $13600
> 
> I bet there are very few that have a credit card that will not support $13600 over the course of a month. Of course add in travel and expenses and the total goes up, but it is manageable for sure.
> 
> I have 2 in my pocket now that have $30,000 limits and an Am Ex that has no limit. It would be a good bet that most contributors to this discussion can match that.
> They are not that hard to procure. Many if not most of us throw away several credit card offerings every week. Cash flow management is not that difficult for someone who is a decent business person and makes their clients stay current in payment.
> As far as high speed internet, it only costs a couple bucks to go to an office type store and rent a high speed computer for the 5-10 minutes it takes to enter.
> 
> IMO, the dead horse known as EE has been beaten enough.
> 
> MP


I don't think you are understanding my post. 

At any rate, can your pros tie up $10,000 for the 4-5 months between entering on the day a test opens and the events are run? If I were a pro, I wouldn't do that even if I could. 

I know they could carry that for the CC billing cycle, but the typical hunt test pro could not loan float the clients a 4 month loan for a combined $10k.


----------



## Troopers Mom

The suspension of the VIP program is a farce. They can still enter their dogs in a big block with one click. One just opened tonight and I couldn't even get my 1 dog in.


----------



## Madluke

Granddaddy said:


> The VIP Program as relates to AKC Hunting Tests has, in fact, been suspended.
> 
> Other things that EE is in the process of developing are: 1) System changes to standardize when an event opens (date & time prior to the event) or least preventing an event to open more than so many days prior, 2) developing a public & visible waiting list from which entries will be filled automatically when an entry is scratched, 3) developing an online scratch capability to replace the current manual system, & 4) developing an approach whereby clubs can reserve a percentage of openings for workers in limited master stakes for a 24 hour period beginning with the opening of the event for entry. We hope to begin testing these changes within 30 days but we are NOT COMMITTING to when they will be implemented on the live system. I will just say we will implement them when they are completed, tested and ready.
> 
> These changes have been determined in discussions with the AKC, the RHTAC & direct user input. Those governing bodies & the MN Club may be planning other changes.
> 
> I am certain that EE's planned changes will help with the perception of fairness and openness in the entry process but I also believe these planned changes will have little effect on the real problem - supply and demand.
> 
> I'm going duck hunting. Enjoy the discussion.


Thank you, many will welcome these changes. It is nice to know that all parties are in discussion. However, you could refer to the problem as crowd control rather than supply and demand. To do that you change the rules. Hopefully, the other groups will implement positive changes as well.


----------



## Moose Mtn

My thoughts on making MN qualifiers be from a limited # of entries:

i believe this will push more amature and inexperienced handlers to pros

why risk a fail that would keep the dog from MN's due to my lack of experience or poor handling. I also think it will run off those who just like to run hunt tests as they can't enter tests beyond the limit just because they want to. 

Judge shopping will will become prevalent 

I don't think it resembles anything good for the sport


----------



## captainjack

Moose Mtn said:


> ...
> i believe this will push more amature and inexperienced handlers to pros...


You may be correct.



Moose Mtn said:


> ...
> why risk a fail that would keep the dog from MN's due to my lack of experience or poor handling. ...


I train and handle my own dogs primarily in field trails. I risk failure because I enjoy doing it and get great satisfaction from doing it myself. My results would certainly be better, but for me, an few AA placements on a dog that I trained and handled myself is more satisfying than an FC that someone else trained and handled.



Moose Mtn said:


> ...
> Judge shopping will will become prevalent...


It already is, but will certainly get worse.



Moose Mtn said:


> ...
> I don't think it resembles anything good for the sport


I won't argue that point, but I think if they are going to say that a dog that passes 6 out of 12, or 24, or even 36 MH tests "qualified" to run the MN, then they should just do away with an annual qualification requirement altogether.


----------



## Good Dogs

Granddaddy said:


> The VIP Program as relates to AKC Hunting Tests has, in fact, been suspended. Time will show what all the verbiage to the contrary has failed to show - that the desire to enter a master stake will still be unavailable to some who desired to enter. Events will still fill up quicker than some can enter - and pros will still get most of the available slots. As someone mentioned in this thread, this action is much like putting a bandaid on a water hose as relates to the limited master stake. This condition will continue until such time as the stake loses it popularity or the AKC in concert with the Master National Club develop a better approach to qualifying for the Master National annual event where demand has been heightened by the change in qualification requirements and by introduction of the MNH title.
> 
> But from EE's prospective, there has never been any intent to provide advantage to anyone in the entry process - and we are confident the program provides no real entry advantage. The VIP Program was instituted for ONE PURPOSE, and that purpose was to find some means of avoiding credit card processing fees that are charged by merchant banks with each credit card transaction - and are EE's largest operational expense. During 2014, EE avoided over $27,000 in credit card processing fees through the VIP Program where users pay their entry fees via check. Despite some comments made here and in other threads, EE has not been a money-making venture. EE has incurred persistent financial losses for each of its operating years since its founding with the exception of the last two years when a near break even position has been achieved by streamlining operations & reducing personnel. Without the VIP Program, EE will now incur those credit card fees it has avoided through the VIP Program. As such, EE will likely be forced to pass along credit card processing fees to the clubs who in turn will likely increase their entry fees to cover those costs. The point being that EE's operating costs must be covered in order to provide its services and the VIP Program helped that process.
> 
> Other things that EE is in the process of developing are: 1) System changes to standardize when an event opens (date & time prior to the event) or least preventing an event to open more than so many days prior, 2) developing a public & visible waiting list from which entries will be filled automatically when an entry is scratched, 3) developing an online scratch capability to replace the current manual system, & 4) developing an approach whereby clubs can reserve a percentage of openings for workers in limited master stakes for a 24 hour period beginning with the opening of the event for entry. We hope to begin testing these changes within 30 days but we are NOT COMMITTING to when they will be implemented on the live system. I will just say we will implement them when they are completed, tested and ready.
> 
> These changes have been determined in discussions with the AKC, the RHTAC & direct user input. Those governing bodies & the MN Club may be planning other changes.
> 
> I am certain that EE's planned changes will help with the perception of fairness and openness in the entry process but I also believe these planned changes will have little effect on the real problem - supply and demand.
> 
> I'm going duck hunting. Enjoy the discussion.


Thanks David. Good luck and enjoy the hunt.


----------



## Granddaddy

Troopers Mom said:


> The suspension of the VIP program is a farce. They can still enter their dogs in a big block with one click. One just opened tonight and I couldn't even get my 1 dog in.


The VIP Program had virtually nothing to do with the inability of you & others to enter events while it was operating & now when it isn't. I indicated that months' ago when some began to rant against the program, a program that actually benefits all EE users by reducing operating costs. You cite a popular event that still reached its limit within a short period, even though the VIP Program was not available for entry. I also indicated this would happen in my announcement above, post #304. Here's the relevant part, "*....**the desire to enter a master stake will still be unavailable to some who desired to enter. Events will still fill up quicker than some can enter - and pros will still get most of the available slots. As someone mentioned in this thread, this action is much like putting a bandaid on a water hose as relates to the limited master stake...."*. What you really want is entry and you blame EE because EE can tell you very quickly whether you get an entry slot or not, even though the entry process on EE is impartial and slots go on a first come, first serve basis. The farce is the continued claim of entry with one click. The entry screens are non-discriminatory, everyone has the same process.

It's time the community begins to focus on the real issues. The issues are clearly associated with the demand for slots versus a smaller supply. This is directly attributable to clubs limiting entries, the MN qualification policy, the pursuit of the AKC MNH title and the rules of those two bodies that govern the process. EE is simply the mode of entry & it is an impartial process without the ability of personalities to manipulate the process. And I have to add, the other changes that EE is currently developing won't solve the problem either. It's time for the community to focus on the real issues and develop real solutions.


----------



## Dave Mirek

Have there been any responses to the letters sent to the AKC? I am sorry I don't remember in the thread where the well written letter was, just curious as to any response. Thanks

David Didier, your summary is perfect, I think that people are mad at EE but it is only the tool that is doing what it is designed to do (and it works great). The root of the problem is not EE. Policy and Procedure need to change from time to time and this is a direct result of failure to see this demand change and creating a strategy to meet it.


----------



## captainjack

Sadie & Ruby said:


> Have there been any responses to the letters sent to the AKC? I am sorry I don't remember in the thread where the well written letter was, just curious as to any response. Thanks
> 
> David Didier, your summary is perfect, I think that people are mad at EE but it is only the tool that is doing what it is designed to do (and it works great). The root of the problem is not EE. Policy and Procedure need to change from time to time and this is a direct result of failure to see this demand change and creating a strategy to meet it.


The focus of the well written letters was on the perceived unfairness of the VIP program at EE.

It is sad that these efforts were not directed at the real problems. As it is, everyone who runs a test or trial will see the cost of entry go up and the same people still won't get in the tests.


----------



## Karen Klotthor

I do not understand why cost would go up. IF we pay 4.50 to cover the credit card charge, so will the pros on the 20 dogs. With the VIP they did not pay the 4.50 because they wrote checks. I do not understand why cost would go up. All who enter will still pay the 4.50 that covers the credit card charge. I do not think clubs would have problem if EE charges say $1.00 more for the catalogs. That would increase their income overall, but each club would not be paying that much more. NO reason to up fees anywhere on the entry level. I think what makes it all more fair is all put their money up and I think that some will not what to tie up so much money that far in advance, Also, any dogs scratched at the last minute still pays the fees like all.


----------



## captainjack

Karen Klotthor said:


> I do not understand why cost would go up. IF we pay 4.50 to cover the credit card charge, so will the pros on the 20 dogs. With the VIP they did not pay the 4.50 because they wrote checks. I do not understand why cost would go up. All who enter will still pay the 4.50 that covers the credit card charge. I do not think clubs would have problem if EE charges say $1.00 more for the catalogs. That would increase their income overall, but each club would not be paying that much more. NO reason to up fees anywhere on the entry level. I think what makes it all more fair is all put their money up and I think that some will not what to tie up so much money that far in advance, Also, any dogs scratched at the last minute still pays the fees like all.


According to the VIP details on EE, everyone pays the $4.50 fee regardless of method of payment or VIP or not. So the only thing in the equation that will change is more CC payments and less checks, thus more CC fees with no additional revenue.

Edit: also, pros don't pay entry fees, their clients do. So they will simply bill the client when they enter. This also will have no affect on how many or when the pro enters the dogs.


----------



## SWIPER

The problems with entering AKC Hunt Tests.
1) The time a test is opened for entry.
2) The pro's entering multiple dogs with one click of a button.
3) After a test closes and people scratch, being able to fill those spots.
4) Scratch fee policy. (TOO many dogs seem to come in heat multiple times in a Hunt Test season or get injured when Handlers can't run that weekend.) The clubs are the only ones that are hurt with this policy returning money, when they still ordered birds and some clubs still have to pay help to run tests.

The Simple answers to fix AKC Hunt Tests.
1) ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm in ALL time zones.
2) No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs.
3) Having a waiting list 24 Hours after a test closes, to fill those spots.
4) If a dog scratches ( for any reason) a $25 non refundable fee to cover the clubs expenses for that dog.

When a Master test opens and fills up in 15 minutes. everyone had the same chance to enter. When a test closes spots can still be filled for 24 hours. When a dog has to scratch their is no need to go to the vet and get an excuse ( real or fake ) BECAUSE IT DOES HAPPEN MORE THAN YOU THINK, the club is still compensated for ALL the work it takes to put on a test to improve the retriever and handlers.

Just something to think about.


----------



## Madluke

A system that is fair and equal to all participants is the basis of all competive events. Change is ALLWAYS a part of the process as events evolve over time. The EE changes are a reasonable adjustment to the integrated balance that all of these independent organizations bring to each other. When the AKC initiated a rule change allowing clubs to limit entries it was not so much because of the growth of MN but because of smaller clubs inability to respond to the unpredictability of entries and being able to host an event. Limited available land, limited workers, costs and judges was the main contributor hence the rule was changed but the premis for the rule change is still as valid if not more so today.

MN has grown and all participating in the Hunt Test Venue are waiting to hear more from MN and AKC on what changes they may implement to help the sport continue to grow on all levels with a sense of balance and fairness for everyone to participate. It is just time for that change and hopefully they will respond in an appropriate way that meets the growth of the sport.


----------



## Pam Spears

Here we are. Entry Express has done away with the VIP program and people are still complaining about "pros entering multiple dogs with the click of a button." Regular people who have multiple dogs have the same option, although the pros usually do have more dogs to enter than individuals do. Are we suggesting that EE do away with the ability to enter more than one dog at a time?


----------



## Criquetpas

SWIPER said:


> The problems with entering AKC Hunt Tests.
> 1) The time a test is opened for entry.
> 2) The pro's entering multiple dogs with one click of a button.
> 3) After a test closes and people scratch, being able to fill those spots.
> 4) Scratch fee policy. (TOO many dogs seem to come in heat multiple times in a Hunt Test season or get injured when Handlers can't run that weekend.) The clubs are the only ones that are hurt with this policy returning money, when they still ordered birds and some clubs still have to pay help to run tests.
> 
> The Simple answers to fix AKC Hunt Tests.
> 1) ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm in ALL time zones.
> 2) No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs.
> 3) Having a waiting list 24 Hours after a test closes, to fill those spots.
> 4) If a dog scratches ( for any reason) a $25 non refundable fee to cover the clubs expenses for that dog.
> 
> When a Master test opens and fills up in 15 minutes. everyone had the same chance to enter. When a test closes spots can still be filled for 24 hours. When a dog has to scratch their is no need to go to the vet and get an excuse ( real or fake ) BECAUSE IT DOES HAPPEN MORE THAN YOU THINK, the club is still compensated for ALL the work it takes to put on a test to improve the retriever and handlers.
> 
> Just something to think about.


Tom,
Too simple to follow.You don't need more rules and regs in the short term, save for the long term. Some of it is a club issue and can be addressed immediately. The scratch policy is great. There are folks who have a stack of Vet excuses or just make the call for an excuse. There is a standing joke in the work force, "so and so killed off his whole family" with his funeral leave! bitches come in season four or five times a year.
Your answers to "fix" the hunt tests in the short term will work. Some of it could start with a meeting on the Boards of local clubs as I type. Folks have to have first hand knowledge of being a hunt test secretary EE or not to get the full picture. I have and so have you.


----------



## RookieTrainer

Granddaddy said:


> What you really want is entry and you blame EE because EE can tell you very quickly whether you get an entry slot or not, even though the entry process on EE is impartial and slots go on a first come, first serve basis. The farce is the continued claim of entry with one click. The entry screens are non-discriminatory, everyone has the same process.
> 
> It's time the community begins to focus on the real issues. The issues are clearly associated with the demand for slots versus a smaller supply. This is directly attributable to clubs limiting entries, the MN qualification policy, the pursuit of the AKC MNH title and the rules of those two bodies that govern the process. EE is simply the mode of entry & it is an impartial process without the ability of personalities to manipulate the process. And I have to add, the other changes that EE is currently developing won't solve the problem either. It's time for the community to focus on the real issues and develop real solutions.[/COLOR]


As I have said before, there are really two problems here, either real or perceived. The first one is that the VIP program, non-standard opening times for entries, no way for test workers to make sure their dog(s) get in, and other things that you posted about EE addressing have created an (perceived) opportunity for a privileged few to have a better shot at getting in. I think the things you are talking about changing would go a long way towards taking EE out of the line of fire on this issue. If everybody has to enter the same way, and more importantly if everyone *believes *that everybody has to enter the same way, I may still not get in but I can't legitimately gripe about EE having any role in that process anymore. For example, I know for a fact that some know when a test is going to open. EE did not cause that problem, but it certainly could and now apparently will attempt to take that out of the equation with your proposed changes. Looks like progress to me.

This would then require folks to address the real problem of simply not having enough supply for the demand. Which is an issue that was not caused by EE and that EE will pretty much no longer have much to do with if those proposed changes get implemented.


----------



## Nick Toti

THE PROBLEM IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND, NOT EE, NOT PROS, NOT AMATUERS, NOTHING ELSE. The Supply/Demand Relationship is not at equilibrium and the controlling parties will not fix it. The high demand to run a master test is driven by the qualification requirement for the Master National. To qualify for the MN you must run at least 6 master tests and pass 6. This requirement is causing demand to be unreasonably high, and there has not been a sufficient increase in supply or a sufficient increase in price to balance the market. In a normal economic environment the supplier could just increase the qty and maintain the price or they could keep the qty constant and increase the price to relieve some of the demand, or in some situations increase both qty and price. None of this is happening and we now have ran into a problem. It seems that the supply is at its Max so demand must change. We can change demand by changing the requirements to qualify for the MN, increasing the Price of test entry, or artificially change demand by limiting dogs per handler or random selection for dogs requesting to run. Some of these options are in the hands of the clubs, and some of these options are in the hands of the Parent Orginization. 

It is a shame the amateur has been pushed so far away from the sport that was originally created for them. I do not blame it on the Pros, I blame it on the organization that created a problem that they are either too ignorant to fix or they don’t care to fix.


----------



## JS

Nick Toti said:


> THE PROBLEM IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND, NOT EE, NOT PROS, NOT AMATUERS, NOTHING ELSE. The Supply/Demand Relationship is not at equilibrium and the controlling parties will not fix it. The high demand to run a master test is driven by the qualification requirement for the Master National. To qualify for the MN you must run at least 6 master tests and pass 6. This requirement is causing demand to be unreasonably high, and there has not been a sufficient increase in supply or a sufficient increase in price to balance the market. In a normal economic environment the supplier could just increase the qty and maintain the price or they could keep the qty constant and increase the price to relieve some of the demand, or in some situations increase both qty and price. None of this is happening and we now have ran into a problem. It seems that the supply is at its Max so demand must change. *We can change demand by changing the requirements to qualify for the MN*, increasing the Price of test entry, or artificially change demand by limiting dogs per handler or random selection for dogs requesting to run. Some of these options are in the hands of the clubs, and some of these options are in the hands of the Parent Orginization.
> 
> It is a shame the amateur has been pushed so far away from the sport that was originally created for them. I do not blame it on the Pros, I blame it on the organization that created a problem that they are either too ignorant to fix or they don’t care to fix.


So how would you change the requirements?

Some would suggest that lowering/easing requirements (several different methods have been suggested) would result in fewer entries in weekend tests, as folks would qualify quicker get out, thereby opening up slots for others.

Some would suggest stiffening up the requirements (several different methods have been suggested) so folks have a more realistic perception of their chances. Maybe they would stay home and train instead of running weekend tests until they eventually hack through and get qualified. OR they may come to realize that all dogs will never make the cut as Master National dogs.

Seems a lot of folks may be reluctant to embrace the second approach. A thousand dogs are qualified for the Master National??? Maybe that's what the MN Club wants, I dunno, but the attraction of "earning" a place in that group will surely lose it's luster if things continue.

JMO

JS


----------



## Nick Toti

JS said:


> So how would you change the requirements?
> 
> Some would suggest that lowering/easing requirements (several different methods have been suggested) would result in fewer entries in weekend tests, as folks would qualify quicker get out, thereby opening up slots for others.
> 
> Some would suggest stiffening up the requirements (several different methods have been suggested) so folks have a more realistic perception of their chances. Maybe they would stay home and train instead of running weekend tests until they eventually hack through and get qualified. OR they may come to realize that all dogs will never make the cut as Master National dogs.
> 
> Seems a lot of folks may be reluctant to embrace the second approach. A thousand dogs are qualified for the Master National??? Maybe that's what the MN Club wants, I dunno, but the attraction of "earning" a place in that group will surely lose it's luster if things continue.
> 
> JMO
> 
> JS


I don't know much about the master national but if it is supposed to be an opportunity for the nicest master dogs of the year to run then there needs to be a pass rate/% and a no more than # of fails involved. It would create a high quality and lower quantity, being that people wouldn't keep running in fear of failure and dropping their pass rate or increasing their # of fails. Maybe someone with plenty of MN or Master experience can make a suggestion on what the # of passes and pass rates needs to be.


----------



## paul young

JS said:


> So how would you change the requirements?
> 
> Some would suggest that lowering/easing requirements (several different methods have been suggested) would result in fewer entries in weekend tests, as folks would qualify quicker get out, thereby opening up slots for others.
> 
> Some would suggest stiffening up the requirements (several different methods have been suggested) so folks have a more realistic perception of their chances. Maybe they would stay home and train instead of running weekend tests until they eventually hack through and get qualified. OR they may come to realize that all dogs will never make the cut as Master National dogs.
> 
> Seems a lot of folks may be reluctant to embrace the second approach. A thousand dogs are qualified for the Master National??? Maybe that's what the MN Club wants, I dunno, but the attraction of "earning" a place in that group will surely lose it's luster if things continue.
> 
> JMO
> 
> JS


Make 2 changes as to how the dogs can qualify for the MN;


1.) make it 3 out of 3. 
2.) Any dog that has passed 2 MN's is automatically qualified without running ANY further weekend tests.-Paul


----------



## Swampcollie

The MNRC has shown no desire to make changes to the entry requirements for the national event. They see the large numbers as a measure of their success. They like the large numbers and the large budget that comes with it. They will not take action in getting their event under control until clubs drop their involvement with them. When a sufficient number of member clubs kick them to the curb, they might get the hint that the local clubs and handlers are fed up with things the way they are. 

The local clubs officers and board members need to take a close look at the goals of their own organization and their membership. If your own members can't get entered in your own clubs' test there is a problem that has to be addressed. If the MNRC won't make changes necessary to accommodate the needs of your club, drop your association with them. Your own clubs needs must come first. 

Does your club exist to serve the MNRC or does the MNRC exist to serve your club? Keep your priorities in focus.


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs

Swampcollie said:


> The MNRC has shown no desire to make changes to the entry requirements for the national event. They see the large numbers as a measure of their success. They like the large numbers and the large budget that comes with it. They will not take action in getting their event under control until clubs drop their involvement with them. When a sufficient number of member clubs kick them to the curb, they might get the hint that the local clubs and handlers are fed up with things the way they are.
> 
> The local clubs officers and board members need to take a close look at the goals of their own organization and their membership. If your own members can't get entered in your own clubs' test there is a problem that has to be addressed. If the MNRC won't make changes necessary to accommodate the needs of your club, drop your association with them. Your own clubs needs must come first.
> 
> Does your club exist to serve the MNRC or does the MNRC exist to serve your club? Keep your priorities in focus.


NEED A LIKE BUTTON! Very well written.


----------



## junbe

*Blackhawk Retriever Club 2015 July Member Hunting Test and Owner-Handler Qualifying (Master Limited to 60 Entries)*

Friday, July 10, 2015 - Sunday, July 12, 2015

Held in Gilmanton , WI

Entries Close: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST

Event Type: AKC Hunting Test
Event Number: 2015352602 & 03

July Master Full!

StakeFeeEntriesJudgesStartMaster$80.0060 (limit 60)  
 -Master A Rick EdingtonKirk Rice7/10/2015 8:00 a.m. -Master B Richard EllisKaren Vossbein7/10/2015 8:00 a.m.
  


----------



## RockyDog

junbe said:


> *Blackhawk Retriever Club 2015 July Member Hunting Test and Owner-Handler Qualifying (Master Limited to 60 Entries)*
> 
> Friday, July 10, 2015 - Sunday, July 12, 2015
> 
> Held in Gilmanton , WI
> 
> Entries Close: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST
> 
> Event Type: AKC Hunting Test
> Event Number: 2015352602 & 03
> 
> July Master Full!
> 
> StakeFeeEntriesJudgesStartMaster$80.0060 (limit 60)
> -Master ARick EdingtonKirk Rice7/10/2015 8:00 a.m. -Master BRichard EllisKaren Vossbein7/10/2015 8:00 a.m.
>   


15 of the 60 (25%) are already MH titled.


----------



## captainjack

junbe said:


> *Blackhawk Retriever Club 2015 July Member Hunting Test and Owner-Handler Qualifying (Master Limited to 60 Entries)*
> 
> Friday, July 10, 2015 - Sunday, July 12, 2015
> 
> Held in Gilmanton , WI
> 
> Entries Close: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST
> 
> Event Type: AKC Hunting Test
> Event Number: 2015352602 & 03
> 
> July Master Full!
> 
> StakeFeeEntriesJudgesStartMaster$80.0060 (limit 60)
> -Master A Rick EdingtonKirk Rice7/10/2015 8:00 a.m. -Master B Richard EllisKaren Vossbein7/10/2015 8:00 a.m.
>   


Can anyone explain why a club would open an event for enteies so far in advance?

Is it because being that far in advance, it won't be on most people's radar?


----------



## Larry Housman

paul young said:


> Make 2 changes as to how the dogs can qualify for the MN;
> 
> 
> 1.) make it 3 out of 3.
> 2.) Any dog that has passed 2 MN's is automatically qualified without running ANY further weekend tests.-Paul



I'd actually like to see the requirements eased to get to the big dance, which is what the other two orgs do - once you get the highest level title you can enter the annual bacchanalia from that point forward. Would up MN entries but reduce weekend entries. Your #2 would do the same thing, to a lesser extent.

However, I don't see the folks that want to "compete" for best hunt test dog but won't go to field trials crowd going for that, so it will end up some type of modified, harder to achieve standard. If that is the case, I think 3 for 3 is a little unfair. Beyond the major judge shopping that will go on, I think any dog can have a bad series and if the dog doesn't do close to perfect (depending on the judging) the rest of the test they are out for that year's MN? doesn't seem fair. 3 for 4 might be fairer and is still a high standard. I also like the folks that argue for 2 tough series rather than the current two series of indeterminate difficulty and a cakewalk final series. That would enable a greater test slot supply without penalizing clubs to do so.

And lest anyone think I'm whining about 3 for 3 being too hard, my guy went 6 for 6 after august this year and was good to go by the end of September, so I don't like the 3 for 3 because I think it's too high a bar, not because I don't think I could do it. BTW, I won't be taking up anyone else's valuable slots until next September.


----------



## Gunner_MN

captainjack said:


> Can anyone explain why a club would open an event for enteies so far in advance?
> 
> Is it because being that far in advance, it won't be on most people's radar?


Why wouldn’t you finalize a test if your club was ready? Speaking as a club secretary, if I had our judges lined up and approved by AKC I would finalize as soon as possible. Especially during the slow time of the year. One less item on your list of things to do. Having judged for BlackHawk last year I can say they are a great, well organized club. To imply anything else is ridiculous!

Pat Taphorn
_Train Don’t Complain, Run your Dog not your Mouth!_


----------



## Gawthorpe

David:
Wanted to say thank you for posting the systems updates for Entry Express. The changes might not remove all of the problems, but it sure helps the Hunt Test community know the AKC and RHTAC are trying to make improvements.


----------



## captainjack

Gunner_MN said:


> Why wouldn’t you finalize a test if your club was ready? Speaking as a club secretary, if I had our judges lined up and approved by AKC I would finalize as soon as possible. Especially during the slow time of the year. One less item on your list of things to do. Having judged for BlackHawk last year I can say they are a great, well organized club. To imply anything else is ridiculous!
> 
> Pat Taphorn
> _Train Don’t Complain, Run your Dog not your Mouth!_


I'm not implying I'm asking straight up if that would be the reason. And even if clubs are doing it for that reason, it's their club, they are doing all of the work, they can open when they want to for any reason they want to.

But, the reason you wouldn't do it, is because people are complaining about having their money tied up for 6 or 7 months and many can't plan their time off work that far in advance. Also, this us one of the things the AKC & EE are talking about regulating so it must be an issue for somebody. 

Also, I know there is no economic benefit to the club, and it takes 5 minutes to open the event once all of the pieces are in place (judges, AKC approval, etc.), so I'm just wondering if I'm missing some great benefit of opening early. Maybe I can get our club to do this.


----------



## Cowtown

It appears to me that it has evolved into a situation where having inside info as to the time when entries will open and being quick on a computer have become more important than dog training and handling skills.

That is correct.

How does a newcomer who has Zero contacts supposed to have a chance? They don't.

Shouldn't we be encouraging new blood? They don't appear to be concerned.

How is that fair? It's not.


----------



## houstonLBD

This is my first post on this site, however, I frequently use the search to look up drills, problems others are experiencing, and any other things a newcomer would look up on RTF. My dog and I have mostly been running on the HRC tests, we have our HR, but are looking to run some Senior tests at AKC this spring. Having read the comments on this thread, I'm not looking forward to competing just to sign up for a spot when we get to the Master level. It almost seems like it's going to be more trouble than it's worth. I'm 28 years old, this is my first dog ever, and I got into retriever training because it's fun. But if this is what I have to look forward to, then maybe once we get our SH this spring, we'll just stick to HRC. Atleast there, I don't have to worry about getting insider information just to sign up. Hope this gets cleared up once we are ready for Master.


----------



## Todd Caswell

junbe said:


> *Blackhawk Retriever Club 2015 July Member Hunting Test and Owner-Handler Qualifying (Master Limited to 60 Entries)*
> 
> Friday, July 10, 2015 - Sunday, July 12, 2015
> 
> Held in Gilmanton , WI
> 
> Entries Close: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:59:59 PM CST
> 
> Event Type: AKC Hunting Test
> Event Number: 2015352602 & 03
> 
> July Master Full!
> 
> StakeFeeEntriesJudgesStartMaster$80.0060 (limit 60)
> -Master A Rick EdingtonKirk Rice7/10/2015 8:00 a.m. -Master B Richard EllisKaren Vossbein7/10/2015 8:00 a.m.
>   


SO 1/3 of the entries (20) are from one handler, 60 dog master is split, 30 dogs per test, so 20 of the 30 dogs in flight A or B will be handled by one handler, looks like they are going to need a few BY dogs....


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> I don't think you are understanding my post.
> 
> At any rate, can your pros tie up $10,000 for the 4-5 months between entering on the day a test opens and the events are run? If I were a pro, I wouldn't do that even if I could.
> 
> I know they could carry that for the CC billing cycle, but the typical hunt test pro could not loan float the clients a 4 month loan for a combined $10k.


Im Confused as to what your argument is......... earlier you stated;

"With that said, if there was no VIP, I'd expect most pros (I would if I were a pro) to list all 20 of there client dogs in EE, enter & pay with a CC and bill their clients before the CC payment comes due. 

So you'd be no better off whether there is a VIP or not.
Someone earlier wrote - do away with VIP. It won't fix the problem but..."
Aren't you the same guy who has been saying that the VIP program doesn't give any advantage to their members?
Don't switch dresses in the middle of the dance


----------



## captainjack

mjh345 said:


> Im Confused as to what your argument is......... earlier you stated;
> 
> "With that said, if there was no VIP, I'd expect most pros (I would if I were a pro) to list all 20 of there client dogs in EE, enter & pay with a CC and bill their clients before the CC payment comes due.
> 
> So you'd be no better off whether there is a VIP or not.
> Someone earlier wrote - do away with VIP. It won't fix the problem but..."
> Aren't you the same guy who has been saying that the VIP program doesn't give any advantage to their members?
> Don't switch dresses in the middle of the dance


Not surprised that you are confused, but it's really very simple. Mike P said the pros could enter on a credit card and carry that balance or either pay the balance without billing the client until after the event date. That's up to 7 months based on the recent post about Blackhawk. I'm saying they can't do that, or even if they could that they shouldn't. However they can simply bill the client when they enter the test. Therefore they will be paid by the client by the time the CC bill comes due.

So there it is. You've successfully killed the VIP program, but you are in the same position relative to the pro. If you want to enter Blackhawk, you have to tie up your money for 7 months, while the pro does not. And as you said yourself, now you can concentrate on the real problem. 

But you have succeeded in increasing the costs to everyone who enters a hunt test or trial. So smoke up Johnny! Well done!

Edit: think about this... Maybe you wouldn't have so many issues getting into these MH tests if you didn't have to run so many of them in order to title.


----------



## mjh345

captainjack said:


> Not surprised that you are confused, but it's really very simple. Mike P said the pros could enter on a credit card and carry that balance or either pay the balance without billing the client until after the event date. That's up to 7 months based on the recent post about Blackhawk. I'm saying they can't do that, or even if they could that they shouldn't. However they can simply bill the client when they enter the test. Therefore they will be paid by the client by the time the CC bill comes due.
> 
> So there it is. You've successfully killed the VIP program, but you are in the same position relative to the pro. If you want to enter Blackhawk, you have to tie up your money for 7 months, while the pro does not. And as you said yourself, now you can concentrate on the real problem.
> 
> But you have succeeded in increasing the costs to everyone who enters a hunt test or trial. So smoke up Johnny! Well done!


Once again Captain jacks off. I didn't kill the VIP program, nor did I increase the cost to everyone who enters a test or trial. Now that the VIP program is suspended I am in the same boat relative to the old VIP members. That is a small step in favor of fairness. I wont explain once again where the inherent unfairness was in the VIP program. If it hasn't sunk in in you yet it never will

You make an awful lot of assumptions that just because you like or do something that that makes it a workable solution for everybody.

For example you stated how you would handle the accounting and billing to minimize the amount the pro had exposure on his CC balance. Aren't you an accountant? Most of these VIP members aren't accountants. The VIP program took care of that issue for them but not for non VIP's didn't it? Not exactly fair to non VIP pros was it? 
Another instance you pontificated that if MH's are full people should just run FT's; because you do and you like em. OH GOODY. Lets all be just like Glen!! No thanks, I don't think I'd look good in a dress!!

Kind of myopic and self centered don't you think? Also a we bit short cited IMHO. If just half of the dogs that would ordinarily run a 240 dog MH test followed your advice then your Open and Ams would have 200+ dogs in them. Talk about an unmanageable blood bath of a first series. I'm sure that would really get your bloomers all twisted up and have you screaming like a little girl. The HT game was started to allow average people the option of running their dogs in a venue other than FT's. 
I personally choose to run HT's even though my girl is already MH titled for 2 reasons. The first is because I told the gentleman who ran her in the MN that I would try to get her Qualified every year because he wants to go for the record of the youngest MNH ever and attempt to get more MNH passes on her than any dog.
I would like to run her in a Derby or two before she ages out, but I need to get 4 MH passes on her too. I don't want to run her in Q's since she she is already QAA. I don't think she is ready for All Age Championship stakes yet.
Some don't like competitive games and want to run against a standard. Some don't have the dog for FT's Some don't have the time and available grounds to compete in FT's. Some run their retired FT dogs in HT's so the dog can still have fun in his golden years. My guess is that there are as many reasons people want to run HT's as opposed to FT's as there are handlers.
SURPRISE: They don't all fit or want to fit into the Glen mold.


----------



## suepuff

granddaddy said:


> it's time the community begins to focus on the real issues. the issues are clearly associated with the demand for slots versus a smaller supply. This is directly attributable to clubs limiting entries, the mn qualification policy, the pursuit of the akc mnh title and the rules of those two bodies that govern the process. ee is simply the mode of entry & it is an impartial process without the ability of personalities to manipulate the process. And i have to add, the other changes that ee is currently developing won't solve the problem either. It's time for the community to focus on the real issues and develop real solutions.[/color]


well said.


----------



## hownagytoo

TRUEBLUE said:


> Also, since the pros are running 20-30 dogs at the trial, are they bringing bird throwers with them to help out the club holding the trial?


When I read this I just had to laugh out loud! A 20-30 dog pro truck bring a field helper to a hunt test? I've seen this many times at field trials, never a HT.


----------



## hownagytoo

Whew! Took me awhile to work through all 35 pages of this thread, but it was worth it. Many worthy suggestions, comments, hurrahs and criticisms. It appears that most are in agreement to supply and demand. It also appears that EE has addressed the issue in fairness of payment. One comment, if EE had allowed everyone the same privilege of deferring payment, there most likely would have been no objection. But I can see the problem of 1-click enter all.
What has not taken traction is the idea of limiting the number of dogs that one handler could enter and run. I want to emphasize handler as compared to owner, thus the pro would not be eliminated. The HRC currently uses this system and it appears to work (although, I'm starting to see some of the same HT issues starting arise with their hunts).
By limiting the number of dogs a pro could handle at the test, you would immediately wipe out the problem of the 1-click entry for 20+ dogs.
This is generally not a popular idea with the pro dog trainer, claiming their earnings are being limited. Let's look at the economics. The client of a pro-handled dog will pay the entry fee, plus the amount of the entry fee to the handler, plus travel expenses (think gas, hotel, meals and anything else) divided between all client dogs on the truck, plus a bonus if a ribbon is received. So, $164 (entry plus fee) times 8 = $1312. Not including any type of bonus and all expenses paid. Not bad. Now consider that money is on top of the monthly training fees to the client. Just sayin'
There is another consideration in the clubs' favor...wouldn't it be wonderful if you didn't have to worry any more about how to get all those huge dog trailers back where the test is being held?
I'm not sure if this handler limitation is something they coud do on there own or if it would require an AKC blessing, but it is worth consideration.
On another note: I would consider 5 passes out of 8 most fair for MN qualification. Sometimes the birds and the wind (and sometimes the judges) don't go your way.
I also agree with an overall scratch fee, no matter the circumstances. However that policy is written across all AKC venues, not just HT. That idea would involve a policy change on all fronts. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but will require a whole lot of cooperation.


----------



## Wyldfire

> For everyone that believes a percentage of qualifications is needed let's discuss the past.
> Just a few years ago the 5 of 7 qualifications was tried for 2 or 3 years.
> Understand the concept of judge shopping became an art form.
> The sport still suffers today from some of the high completion rates experienced. Couple that with a popular vote to elect judges and there's a recipe for something


I couldn't agree more. Also I think it could make the current problems even worse. Many of us that were hunt test chairs and secretaries can certainly remember the trend that was starting during the times of the 6 of 8 rules. Dog has bad first or second series handler scratches dog before callbacks given with a broken nail, vomiting, ect excuse. People scratching dogs because of a hard set up. A 6-8 rule or any percentage rule easily could lead to more scratches and dogs having to enter even more test then they currently do. So what seems to some as an obvious way to ease the entries problems to some can easily make things much worse.


----------



## rookie

Just think if we could just hold a amateur owner handler MH! Entries would fall into place and then the pros would be crying Fowl. Just a thought but the clubs should be pressing the AKC for a Change or should talk to the HTAB to make a change. One last thought no co-owned dogs run by professionals.
Warren Price


----------



## mjh345

Question. Who is Chuck Hedley, and how did he and Chuck the Dog crack the code on getting entered AFTER a test is already full??? Hmmmm!!


----------



## Nate_C

Not sure why this became a Pro versus Amateur argument. Yes they add volume but they have been around for years and the issue has come up in the last 3 years. Also Pros are very critical to the sport as a whole. The problem is 100% the master national. There are likely around 900 dogs that will run the 2015 MN. I would say 600 at least already have MH title and 400+ already have at least 1 MN pass. This is easy to fix. Remove the artificial demand. If you have already passed one MN you auto qualify for the next 2 years or something. That would remove at least 1000 spots figuring they would still run a few here and there.


----------



## Thomas D

We will see in several months what % of the already qualified dog continue to run weekend tests. It's their right to do this, but will tell if the above fix does anything for the large weekend entries. I would guess very little change.

Sooner or later the weekend HT will become a game for only Those seeking to qual for MN.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Labs

annnd there it is....


----------



## Steve Thornton

I own one dog who may not have enough of a trainer to run trials. So what do I do quit after Senior Hunter. I most definitely thing it's worth it.


----------



## Pam Spears

Steve, I'm with you, although mine already has her master. I will continue to enter for the fun of it, and I have branched out into HRC. Luckily where I live tests aren't that difficult to get into. A couple of the bigger ones actually do fill before closing, but so far I have had no trouble getting into anything I was really interested in. I have no intention of entering the MN: the traveling and a week of training in advance of the test is too much of a time commitment. Weekend tests are sufficient for me, and if she qualifies for the MN this year or any year, I will be proud to say she qualified that year. I would be willing to start running Qs except that we have no ground sufficient to prepare for those kinds of distances.


----------



## chanman77

We all have the same problem. How about training a little harder and entering a few qualifying events. If AKC is going to continue unlimited entries so one cant get in, and you have already been thru the HRC program, maybe the field trialers will wants us?


----------



## DoubleHaul

chanman77 said:


> We all have the same problem. How about training a little harder and entering a few qualifying events. If AKC is going to continue unlimited entries so one cant get in, and you have already been thru the HRC program, maybe the field trialers will wants us?


Give it a try. Be prepared to get hooked.


----------

