# Limits: discussion from a practical aspect



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

We have seen a plethora of solutions & arguments for and against each. Everything from pro vs amateur to lottery systems to entry in steps. 

Clubs limit because of lack of volunteers, lack of grounds or not wanting to deal with the hassle of last minute splits & partially full flights (money). The last two are not going to change. The first has a solution=more volunteers.

What does it take from a volunteer standpoint to put on another Master test?
2 judges (thanks to their tireless dedication to the game=readily available)
3 marshals (ideal)
4 flyer shooters (to allow breaks)
4 hired bird technicians

My question: Can a club expand limits to add another Master flight? Or does the AKC not allow this? 

In the cases of filling a flight in less than 24 hours an ample amount of time is available. If a club chair had 10-15 new volunteers willing to work 2 days would they consider opening another flight? My guess is that most clubs want more participation rather than less. If there are enough dogs to fill another flight then we are back to lack of grounds.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

I would bet most clubs struggle with lack of quality grounds esp. water to add additional flights.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Yes sir! Lack of grounds is a serious issue. Especially water. However, all of these clubs held tests prior to limits.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Well, since we're just brainstorming, let me throw this out there. And no, I have not put a lot of thought into it.

Let's take the emphasis off "pros" (read: those with a large number of entries) and focus on the test itself. What if every Master National Club were required to put on one test per year that did NOT qualify for MN. This could be one of their customary 2 per year OR it could be in addition. Club's choice.

This would drastically thin out the entries at those tests and provide an opportunity for those who are just chasing the MH and not interested in the National test. Opportunities for those wanting to qualify for the MN would be fewer, but that might be a good thing, IMO. Maybe there wouldn't be 700 or 800 dogs qualifying each year and those that need a dozen tries to qualify will just have to try again next year. (There ARE some who think the MN is in danger of losing some prestige as more and more dogs are qualifying.)

Yes, it would take some amending of other AKC rules but it might be a good thing all around. OR ... as I said, I haven't put a lot of thought into it.

JS


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Lack of water and manpower seem to be the kicker for most clubs that want limits.


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Prior to the 2013 rule change allowing limited entries does anyone know if there was ever a MH test that was cancelled because of too many entries and all the logistics that go with it? Were there any handlers that didn't get to finish a MH test because of the same? If so how often did this happen?


----------



## Elaine Mitchell (Jun 4, 2009)

fishduck said:


> We have seen a plethora of solutions & arguments for and against each. Everything from pro vs amateur to lottery systems to entry in steps.
> 
> Clubs limit because of lack of volunteers, lack of grounds or not wanting to deal with the hassle of last minute splits & partially full flights (money). The last two are not going to change. The first has a solution=more volunteers.
> 
> ...


I've wondered about that too. I'm pretty new to AKC but I know it's not at all unusual for an HRC club to add a finished flight if they fill up. It would take some juggling but at least you'd be doing it with 4-6 weeks notice rather than the 1 week we had before limits. 

And remember it's not just the Am's that are not getting in. I know of several Pros that have not been able to get dogs into tests they would have liked to run. My dog is pro trained but I run him. I'm not quite ready for a MN just yet but the reality is that when we reach a point where we are ready I will have no choice but to let my pro run him some for me. When you start looking at 6-8 (if you're lucky) weekends at $300 plus just to qualify and then another 10-15 days travel expenses plus entry fees to run MN it's just more economical to send him with a pro. Even if money were no issue, I don't have enough vacation time to run him myself.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

fishduck said:


> We have seen a plethora of solutions & arguments for and against each. Everything from pro vs amateur to lottery systems to entry in steps.
> 
> Clubs limit because of lack of volunteers, lack of grounds or not wanting to deal with the hassle of last minute splits & partially full flights (money). The last two are not going to change. The first has a solution=more volunteers.
> 
> ...


Yes it can be done with AKC approval (which isn't too hard to get). It has been done in the past. However, I don't know how big a deal this really is. Most clubs set the limits for a good reason.)

One Idea that may help would be to allow Mater only events. Currently by the rules you have to have at least one other test level offered. Obviously that other test level uses club resources that could be used for another master flight.

The rule was in place to prevent Confirmation clubs to put on Junior only events.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Clubs are still bound by the AKC's mandatory split rules, so if it's a 2 day MH with over 60 dogs, it has to be split into two flights. Let's say the club does have the resources and land to run 2 master flights. I can't imagine the club would chose 120 as a limit and have to split it over running 2 separate 60 dog limit tests. With two separate tests rather than one that is split in 2 flights, the club gets twice the money. Both need 2 different sets of judges, workers, grounds, equip. etc. but in the case of the two separate tests, twice the money is pulled in for 2 entry fees. And, people love the chance to get 2 passes on the weekends. So that's something to consider....


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

The FT rules have a provision where the club can move the Am start to Friday if the entries are greater than 65. The problem with this is that it requires the club to allow anyone the option to run at the regular time. So, if you a club does start on Friday, finshes the land marks and maybe starts the land blind, it has to go run land marks again on Saturday, so it isn't really workable.

What if in HTs, you allowed a HT that filled its limit before the close to increase the limit and move to a 3 day master and anyone that didn't want to run starting on Friday could scratch? It would take adjustments but it is easier to make them in advance than to deal with it with two weeks before the event.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

fishduck said:


> What does it take from a volunteer standpoint to put on another Master test?
> 2 judges (thanks to their tireless dedication to the game=readily available)
> 3 marshals (ideal)
> 4 flyer shooters (to allow breaks)
> 4 hired bird technicians


One of my clubs is experiencing this right now. We offered two events -- both with Masters with a 120 dog limited. Entries opened Friday night. By Sunday morning the 120 dog limit was reached in both. 60 dogs will run in Master A and Master B for each event. Keep in mind, to put on the events which have 2 masters and a minor stake, Two masters and a minor stake are going to be running at the same time. That takes a lot of judges, gunners, marshals and other manpower. 

To add another master stake for each event is not doable. The club does not have the judges nor the gunners, marshals, bird throwers, and other volunteer help to add a Master C for each event. We are stretching as it is. We regret that there are disappointed people who can't enter their dogs in the Masters. This is a new experience for this No. Calif. club and will probably happen only this year because the MN is to be held in No. California. 

Helen


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I do believe the AKC rule on mandatory split came before the ability of clubs to limit entries. All I could as the HTS was pray that the club's Master entries never exceeded that many because if they did we would have to cancel the test as a whole. At that time we rarely had huge entries and this was due to the dates our test was on and people trying to qualify for the MN. (<--- maybe part of the issue). However when the ability to limit entries came about, it was a perfect way for our club to make sure we did not have to cancel, but the side effect was that other clubs limited, which in turn caused our numbers to go up - I think that's because people are trying to qualify their dogs with this opportunities to do so. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what the solution is, I only have a limited interest in HT and I'm biased toward my club members because I'm the worker bee that attempts to put it on for the circuit (along with a couple other dedicated club members). and you have to keep your workers happy or you won't have anyone working...


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The FT rules have a provision where the club can move the Am start to Friday if the entries are greater than 65. The problem with this is that it requires the club to allow anyone the option to run at the regular time. So, if you a club does start on Friday, finshes the land marks and maybe starts the land blind, it has to go run land marks again on Saturday, so it isn't really workable.
> 
> What if in HTs, you allowed a HT that filled its limit before the close to increase the limit and move to a 3 day master and anyone that didn't want to run starting on Friday could scratch? It would take adjustments but it is easier to make them in advance than to deal with it with two weeks before the event.




If you start a master on Fri. so you can have a bigger one, it probably wouldn't do anything to help the ones being hurt by the limits. It's not going to stem the tidal wave of pro entries, and it's harder on clubs depending on volunteer or even paid help (most of whom have day jobs). Fri. is usually the hardest day to get them.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Elaine says "I don't have enough vacation time to run him myself. " That is a hard consideration but another thought is I know an owner up north who says "My dog is so good so why should I run him and not the pro?" I chocked, why have a dog you can't run? Diff strokes I guess.

My thought on Ams having to Q a MN dog is then we might get more owners in the field, adding to club resources in some case (hopefully they get hooked on all of it not just owning a good dog.)


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> If you start a master on Fri. so you can have a bigger one, it probably wouldn't do anything to help the ones being hurt by the limits. It's not going to stem the tidal wave of pro entries, and it's harder on clubs depending on volunteer or even paid help (most of whom have day jobs). Fri. is usually the hardest day to get them.


Yes, things are tougher on Fridays with volunteers. but every FT starts on Friday. I was thinking about if the issue is grounds and not workers so much. I have no particular interest in keeping pros out (their help is usually most appreciated on Friday)--just keeping entries within the limits of the available grounds and the idea was a way to be able to increase the capacity if it appears that the demand is high enough.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Fishduck you have a great question (ole wise one) and chief stirrer of the pot 

Yes a club can add a flight or 2 up to the 240 limit of limits. Of course all the mandatory splits must be maintained. Above 240 it becomes "unlimited". All these things must happen before the close date/time but yes a club could add flights is they had judges, grounds and workers. 

Hopefully soon some club will try to add 

All in my opinion its not about pros and amateurs - its about the dogs and lets try to remember that 

Dk


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Fishduck you have a great question (ole wise one) and chief stirrer of the pot
> 
> Yes a club can add a flight or 2 up to the 240 limit of limits. Of course all the mandatory splits must be maintained. Above 240 it becomes "unlimited". All these things must happen before the close date/time but yes a club could add flights is they had judges, grounds and workers.
> 
> ...


amateurs arent the ones filling up the tests in 8 minutes.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

With due respect #17 it is amateurs footing the tab. 
Test chairman and all workers are being tested. Wither its about limits or grounds or efforts or / or - or 

This hurdle is about who we are - yes deep dokey but a test of who we are 
I hope i am enough to step forward 
Dk


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

achiro said:


> amateurs arent the ones filling up the tests in 8 minutes.


Yes actually it is

/Paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> With due respect #17 it is amateurs footing the tab.
> Test chairman and all workers are being tested. Wither its about limits or grounds or efforts or / or - or
> 
> This hurdle is about who we are - yes deep dokey but a test of who we are
> ...


Nope, writing a check makes you an owner, not an amateur.


----------



## PamK (Jul 10, 2010)

> I do believe the AKC rule on mandatory split came before the ability of clubs to limit entries. All I could as the HTS was pray that the club's Master entries never exceeded that many because if they did we would have to cancel the test as a whole.


So if the limit was 60 and you had 61 entries you woul dhave to cancel the whole test?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Pam,

I'm sure we could get a waiver from AKC for one dog over the limit, but if it was say 75 dogs and we were forced to split, I don't think we could pull it off...lack of help, lack of grounds (you've been to Rocky Mountain Roosters, have you not?) then to wrangle up another set of judges....no thanks, I'll pass...I have no real vested interest in HTs, it's not my preferred game, but I do host one and do my best to provide an event for those on our circuit, but personally I'm burnt out...and I have a FT to figure out on top of it. I'm pretty sure if I said screw it, the other main character in the club (besides my husband) would also say screw it too. Sorry but the 60 dog limit keeps those of us still active in the club sane...

FOM


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

achiro said:


> Nope, writing a check makes you an owner, not an amateur.


By definition, same group of people

/Paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> By definition, same group of people
> 
> /Paul


Not by the definition used in this conversation. Amateurs don't push one button and enter 30 dogs, a pro(or someone paid by the pro) did. and you say I'm missing the point. LOL!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

achiro said:


> Not by the definition used in this conversation. Amateurs don't push one button and enter 30 dogs, a pro(or someone paid by the pro) did. and you say I'm missing the point. LOL!


yes you are missing the point. What if the entry system only allowed one entry at a time? Or each person entered their own dogs? Would that fix the problem? No. Clubs would have the same problem. Not enough workers to put on a bigger test. Your pissed at those who get dogs entered and never show up to help. Learn to focus on the problem if your gonna fix it.

/Paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> yes you are missing the point. What if the entry system only allowed one entry at a time? Or each person entered their own dogs? Would that fix the problem? No. Clubs would have the same problem. Not enough workers to put on a bigger test. Your pissed at those who get dogs entered and never show up to help. Learn to focus on the problem if your gonna fix it.
> 
> /Paul


Paul, I'm not sure if you've read my ideas or not but 1. I'm not "pissed", I'm not being left out yet but wouldn't mind this being fixed by the time I am ready with current pup. 2. I've said all along that the first day should be open to amateur owner handlers. Not just owners, I know the difference which is why I made the distinction between "owner" and "amateur".


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There does not have to be one solution. 

You can bias the trial however you want, if you have choices available to you.

If you're Darrin, you can elect to have a random draw system
If you're Achiro, you can elect to open the draw first for Amateur Owner Handlers.
If you're Overby, you can have as many flights as you choose.
If you're Lainee, you can limit entries to 60 dogs.

And of course, without any changes, clubs can always elect not to be affiliated with the Master National.

From my perspective, outside looking in, the solution is to have more solutions - and transparency about your solution. No secret handshake club information concerning when the event opens for entry.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> There does not have to be one solution.
> 
> You can bias the trial however you want, if you have choices available to you.
> 
> ...


Ted, I mentioned it somewhere before but I agree with you in that I think AKC should allow the local clubs more freedom to do what is best for them. I don't like limited entry but I understand that some clubs may need it. A club with 10 members can't generally do what a club with 30 members could. Some may need the pros to break even, others may not need to make as much.


----------



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

posted this on the other thread as well.

How about the people who put on the tests have a CLUB OPTION to use a staggered entry. You do what you want at your club. Me and my fellow members will do what we want at our test. 

It is interesting reading all of these posts. It is easy to tell the check writers and check cashers from the worker bees.

Give the power to the people who put on these tests.

For those of you who would tell me to "shut up and get back to work putting on tests", I challenge you to look forward and see how this may end. 

First guy there, last guy to leave. Mowing, tree trimming, what ever is needing to mantain grounds. Working long hours. Just shut up and get to work. Your club exists to serve me. Come'on! To me this is not about pro vs, amatuer. It is about clubs having some control, and about people who would use a disproportional amount of limited volunteer resources.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

It appears raising limits is theoretically possible. From my experience marshalling tests, 7 dedicated volunteers are needed to staff a test with hired throwers. If 7 people volunteered to help would the limits be raised?

Lainee, this obviously has no bearing on those with limited grounds. However, those clubs with limited workers would jump at the chance to add volunteers & contacts to call before the next test. I would also bet my last dollar pros would also be willing to provide a flyer shooter/birdboy if that provided a chance to run their dogs.

In my mind raising capacity is the answer that benefits all. 7 workers=60 more dogs running that weekend.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

dlsweep said:


> How about the people who put on the tests have a CLUB OPTION to use a staggered entry. You do what you want at your club. Me and my fellow members will do what we want at our test.
> 
> It is interesting reading all of these posts. *It is easy to tell the check writers and check cashers from the worker bees*.
> 
> Give the power to the people who put on these tests.



I don't think it is that simple. You can be a worker bee in Texas in the winter and a check writer in the summer when the events move to Minnesota. And you can be a check writer in Minnesota in the winter, and a worker bee in Minnesota in the summer. So there is some give and take.

I also think that you need to acknowledge the improvements in dog training that the pros have brought to the sport.

​That being said, I think that the option of a staggered entry makes sense.


----------



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't think it is that simple. You can be a worker bee in Texas in the winter and a check writer in the summer when the events move to Minnesota. And you can be a check writer in Minnesota in the winter, and a worker bee in Minnesota in the summer. So there is some give and take.
> 
> I also think that you need to acknowledge the improvements in dog training that the pros have brought to the sport.
> 
> ​That being said, I think that the option of a staggered entry makes sense.


Fair enough. Point taken.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't think it is that simple. You can be a worker bee in Texas in the winter and a check writer in the summer when the events move to Minnesota. And you can be a check writer in Minnesota in the winter, and a worker bee in Minnesota in the summer. So there is some give and take.


Ted, I could be wrong, but I don't really think that is the case.

How many trials are these "master" dogs running in a year? It only takes 6 passes to qualify. They can't possibly be running 20-30+ trials a year to qualify like the pros' field trial dogs. Can they?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Ted, I could be wrong, but I don't really think that is the case.
> 
> How many trials are these "master" dogs running in a year? It only takes 6 passes to qualify. They can't possibly be running 20-30+ trials a year to qualify like the pros' field trial dogs. Can they?



​I don't know Doug. I just think that people need to look at the big picture. There are a lot of moving parts.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> ​I don't know Doug. I just think that people need to look at the big picture. There are a lot of moving parts.


That's kind of how we are in this mess. "The law of unintended consequences."

The big thing is I agree with you there is no 1 magic solution. There needs to be more options. What works for 1 club may not work for another.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

dlsweep said:


> First guy there, last guy to leave. Mowing, tree trimming, what ever is needing to mantain grounds. Working long hours. Just shut up and get to work. Your club exists to serve me. Come'on! To me this is not about pro vs, amatuer. It is about clubs having some control, and about people who would use a disproportional amount of limited volunteer resources.


Thank you for your hard work!!! No one that knows me has called me a "check writer".

I would love to see the clubs that are able increase capacity. That happens with more volunteers.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> That's kind of how we are in this mess. "The law of unintended consequences."
> 
> The big thing is I agree with you there is no 1 magic solution. There needs to be more options. What works for 1 club may not work for another.


Will AKC give clubs more options? I don't really know but historically it doesn't seem like it.

I'm wondering out loud here but lets say they did go for allowing clubs to stagger entries. So now a club with limited entry is also able to make sure their getting the amateurs in that want to play. Does that "force the hand" of more pros to join said clubs, attend the meetings and help come up with solutions to no longer need a limited entry? In other words the club members see no solution to grounds or workers but a pro comes in and simply says, "hey, I think limits suck so I will help your club with solutions if we can keep the entry open to all". Are there pros already doing this?


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

fishduck said:


> It appears raising limits is theoretically possible. From my experience marshalling tests, 7 dedicated volunteers are needed to staff a test with hired throwers. If 7 people volunteered to help would the limits be raised?
> 
> Lainee, this obviously has no bearing on those with limited grounds. However, those clubs with limited workers would jump at the chance to add volunteers & contacts to call before the next test. I would also bet my last dollar pros would also be willing to provide a flyer shooter/birdboy if that provided a chance to run their dogs.
> 
> In my mind raising capacity is the answer that benefits all. 7 workers=60 more dogs running that weekend.


This makes sense. Assuming you have the grounds, then the only thing you are missing is volunteers - including to a large extent judges - to pull the thing off. More volunteers = more dogs able to run on a given weekend, again assuming access to grounds is not an issue.


----------



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

Mark,

I would never call someone who gives back and works hard to put on events a check writer. I maybe let my emotions get the best of me and used the wrong words. But I'm sure you know some who do little to give back. I think many people who use pros give back plenty. 

But many clubs are limited by members and grounds. I am saying that these clubs should have some control.



Russ,

I called AKC and was told that clubs may not in any way limit entries per handler.



Again, if your club has unlimited grounds and help, go nuts. Just don't tell me and my merry band of helpers that we are wrong for wanting some control over our events. Long term that model cannot work. Workers will not return.

I am for Carol Cassity's proposal of 10 entries per handler on the first day. Five entries per handler on the second day, and each day thereafter. I would prefer this to be a CLUB OPTION.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> yes you are missing the point. What if the entry system only allowed one entry at a time? Or each person entered their own dogs? Would that fix the problem? No.
> /Paul


My take is fairness is not happening. The problem is because one pro can enter 18 dogs with one click, next pro 12 and then a couple of 8s and there is no room for the worker ams.

At least that is my take. Sure that 18 pro could do them one at a time but perhaps a couple of grunts could get in between. Yes that would take a strict notice of opening which should be the standard anyway. 

I am watching this closely and thinking a pro circuit and an am circuit is in the future. Then all workers could be paid minimum wage for the pro circuit and judges paid what they really might be worth. Am circuit still maintained by those who love the sport.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

achiro said:


> Will AKC give clubs more options? I don't really know but historically it doesn't seem like it.
> 
> I'm wondering out loud here but lets say they did go for allowing clubs to stagger entries. So now a club with limited entry is also able to make sure their getting the amateurs in that want to play. Does that "force the hand" of more pros to join said clubs, attend the meetings and help come up with solutions to no longer need a limited entry? In other words the club members see no solution to grounds or workers but a pro comes in and simply says, "hey, I think limits suck so I will help your club with solutions if we can keep the entry open to all". Are there pros already doing this?


I don't know.

I've seen a huge change in the HT game since I first started running them more than 20 years ago. The backbone of any club are the people training and running their own dogs. They have a genuine passion for the game and the dogs. There wan't nearly the % of pro handled trained and handled dogs as their is today. There are a lot more check writers/ribbon chasers in the game today. IMO There's a lot more people whose only involvement with the hunt tests is writing a check than there are in Field Trials. 

Part of the answer may be that the clubs have to look at it more as a commercial venture where all the resources that are contributed by the club are being compensated, including the volunteers, rather than something they are doing for the good of the sport and their members.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

What if we went back to mail in entries which could not be post marked prior to the premium being open for entries? Everyone has to send them in, the owner, not in bulk either? Then we can be pissed at the USPS? 

Wished there was an easy answer...but if it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem with such passionate debate.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

fishduck said:


> Thank you for your hard work!!! No one that knows me has called me a "check writer".
> 
> I would love to see the clubs that are able increase capacity. That happens with more volunteers.


No one that knows you would ever call you a check writer. We all know Staci keeps the checkbook. 

We had an unplanned split the year before the rule took effect. We made it work by using personal equipment and begging the gallery for help. However, the grounds we used are now sub-leased with cows on it. We limited last year to 120 and ended up dropping a flight due to lack of entries. Limited again this year and we filled up already.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

I don't know really know the history of the Master National, but was there ever a different means of qualifying for it? If the MN decided not to use (or were forced due to clubs dropping their MN membership) Master tests as entry...there would have to be another means of qualifying. Possibly regional qualifying tests, I don't know? I mean, clubs are going to continue limiting their tests as long as they or allowed to. If those same clubs are not allowed to impose limits, then they are going to have to figure out another means of running tests without being overwhelmed. One of those options might be to drop their MN affiliation. Just thinking a little further outside the box.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

It was interesting to see that in the Field Trial circuit there is an organization that holds a test called "Professional Retriever Trainers Association'. They are holding a FT test, just like a club would, in Texas this year. Again to solve this problem we can wait for the AKC to come down with some more restrictive rules or some how some way get more tests in the works. It would be nice if this organization would hold a couple of double masters smack dab in the MN back yard (every year), unlimited entries and pull some of the demand off of local clubs and offer some of us Ams an opportunity to rub elbows with the best. Heck, they can even learn us a bit on running a monster test with great grounds. Here's an opportunity to give back, any takers?

Btw ... Pros in Colorado and NE do give back, holding FT on their property, Offering grounds for small clubs to have a training days, holding seminars on training for free, buying our extra birds at a test and I could go so on.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Re: staggered entries. How would you differentiate between a pro and an am? We know a pro gets paid, but who is going to confirm? EE? I don't want to penalize the pros. I run my own dogs because I enjoy the relationship and accomplishment. But my dogs do spend time with a pro off and on throughout the year. We can't change the fact that someone wants a titled dog and won't/can't do it themselves. Don't penalize the people doing their jobs 

Carols idea is a good one, as are some of the others, but it yet again goes back to the problem of why it's happening. While training yesterday we had a discussion about this and went back to the HRC regional thing. Sounds like a good idea to have regional MN qualifying tests. Take the pressure off the clubs. 

Sue


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Seems like it would be simple just to let the club running the show reserve slots for dogs of their members and the workers. Or maybe have some preregistration period in which the event secretary (like he/she needs more work) enters the club members' and workers' dogs.

Wouldn't it be cool if there were some actual advantage to being in the club?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> What if we went back to mail in entries which could not be post marked prior to the premium being open for entries?


Don't even make jokes about that.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

krapwxman said:


> I don't know really know the history of the Master National, but was there ever a different means of qualifying for it? If the MN decided not to use (or were forced due to clubs dropping their MN membership) Master tests as entry...there would have to be another means of qualifying. Possibly regional qualifying tests, I don't know? I mean, clubs are going to continue limiting their tests as long as they or allowed to. If those same clubs are not allowed to impose limits, then they are going to have to figure out another means of running tests without being overwhelmed. One of those options might be to drop their MN affiliation. Just thinking a little further outside the box.


Yes. There was. IMO, a big part of the problem was created by two events that recently occurred: first the MN qualification changed from passing 5 of 7 tests to any six in an year with no limit on how many run and then the AKC started offering the MNH title, making folks want to run more and more MNs.

Dropping MN membership is one answer, as is dropping HTs completely, of course, if there are no limits. At the end of the day, though, the whole thing is the MN putting the burden on the back of the clubs and the weekend HTs. Sort of like the free farm system the NFL has in college football.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

Well reading some of these post I've come to the conclusion, that those of us, that volunteer, our free time, just aren't working hard enough. So we need to sacrifice more so we can do away with limits. I will probably walk away from our hunt test committee, if we go MN. That's just me, I don't want to work all weekend so a few pro's can run their dogs. Sorry, I work at all our club events, and pitch in at ever test I travel to, either helping pack up gear, setting up holding blinds, something. And in our area; Ia, Mn, Ne, our master test fill in a matter of minutes to hours at MN clubs. It not only affects the masters flights, sometimes we wait a long time, on the pros with 15 plus master dogs to show up to run their senior and junior dogs. I feel that setting an event sign up time, is part of the solution. EE puts a closing time why not a set an opening time. And when I go to buy Cubs tickets, they announce when tickets go on sale and set a six at a time limit, so everyone gets a chance to buy at least a few prime tickets. Whether it's a limit of 6 or what ever, the playing field is even, well unless we set the limit at 20. Sorry for any grammer or spelling errors. The other choice is to drop your clubs from MN, and then when enough clubs leave MN, they will figure a way to make the workers happy again. Money talks.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Downbirds, thank you for your tireless efforts!! Most on this thread volunteer also. 

2 things cause clubs to limit entries. 1: lack of grounds (no feasible solution). 2: lack of volunteers.
Maybe being locked out of tests increases the worker pool. Maybe enough volunteer that limits increase.

I started this thread not to argue or bash any person or club. Simply to explore options within the current rules.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

One option...amateurs step up to the plate, and run your own dogs.
How about that??


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Options open to the clubs at this time:

1. Drop membership in the MNRC. The traveling road show will look elsewhere for MN passes. If your club has limited access to test grounds, this is probably your best option. 

2. Don't use online entries. This eliminates the opportunity to enter multiple dogs with a single click of the mouse. Everybody has to send their paper entry to the hunt test secretary and take their chances. (Yep, the HTS is going to have to do more work but the club will have control of their event again.)


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> One option...amateurs step up to the plate, and run your own dogs.
> How about that??


I have no problem with owner/handler events.  The only problem is Dick & Richard kick my butt!!


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Options open to the clubs at this time:
> 
> 1. Drop membership in the MNRC. The traveling road show will look elsewhere for MN passes. If your club has limited access to test grounds, this is probably your best option.
> 
> 2. Don't use online entries. This eliminates the opportunity to enter multiple dogs with a single click of the mouse. Everybody has to send their paper entry to the hunt test secretary and take their chances. (Yep, the HTS is going to have to do more work but the club will have control of their event again.)


These two options a club can take action on now. They would be effective in reducing the numbers and leaving the club in control of there own destiny. Yes there would be lost entries (its needed) but there are ways to control costs for a breakeven or to even make a couple bucks. How great would it be to host a little 25 dog Master and finish your test by 3 pm Sunday and the trailer is packed by 4 pm.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Outside the box once again ! 
Someone above suggested considering mail entries again. 
That makes the question : Does EE still accept mail entries and just for example we know a test is set for a date. 
Could i not mail the entry in weeks in advance? Would i then be first to enter or how does that work 
Dk


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> Options open to the clubs at this time:
> 
> 1. Drop membership in the MNRC. The traveling road show will look elsewhere for MN passes. If your club has limited access to test grounds, this is probably your best option.
> 
> 2. Don't use online entries. This eliminates the opportunity to enter multiple dogs with a single click of the mouse. Everybody has to send their paper entry to the hunt test secretary and take their chances. (Yep, the HTS is going to have to do more work but the club will have control of their event again.)



What will the procedure be for accepting entries? First come, first served? Random entry? Not sure you will have accomplished much with a return to mailed entries.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Outside the box once again !
> Someone above suggested considering mail entries again.
> That makes the question : Does EE still accept mail entries and just for example we know a test is set for a date.
> Could i not mail the entry in weeks in advance? Would i then be first to enter or how does that work
> Dk


It isn't a question of what entry express does, it's up to the Hunt Test Secretary what the club does. If the Hunt Test Secretary takes back some of the duties assigned to them, much of this stuff can sort itself out.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> What will the procedure be for accepting entries? First come, first served? Random entry? Not sure you will have accomplished much with a return to mailed entries.


If they're going to limit the number of entries, the club (HTS) will have to decide their procedure for the draw as long as it complies with the AKC Regulations and Guidelines for Retriever Hunting Tests.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> What will the procedure be for accepting entries? First come, first served? Random entry? Not sure you will have accomplished much with a return to mailed entries.


Currently the rules provide entries are limited based on first come - first serve. So we are stuck with that Unless AKC changes it. 

There is a problem with the current EE system. - There ought to be a waiting list for scratches. Would stop some of the entries that are just "place holders" now.

A couple things that the old Secretary system could do under the present rules that EE cannot. 

1. Allow for a waiting list, so late scratches can be filled.

2. Allow the club to charge for a scratch fee prior to the close (which would eliminate the entries just holding spots under the current system.) 

However, I do think that the clubs ought to be allowed to reserve a percentage of the slots (say 20% or 25% ) for workers.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

So #58 are you suggesting the HT secretary pick and choose who gets in ? Thinking someone would have a legal field day with that one. 

I am a ht secretary and i am thinking i like EE in the middle right now These limit issues are posing definite challenges right now. 
Dk


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

cakaiser said:


> One option...amateurs step up to the plate, and run your own dogs.
> How about that??


Painting with a huge brush there Charlotte. 

My oldest knucklehead was handled by a pro last year for 11 events including the Master National and both Grands. During that time, I judged 12 times, marshalled 3 others, chaired 2 events, and spent 15 vacation days on the road helping at events in 4 states.

During that time frame said knucklehead was with me, I handled him or the little crazy man at 15 events. (Note that you can run 2 events per weekend at the other venue). If it gets to the point that I can't run or handle my dogs as an amateur or have a pro run him while I'm judging, marshalling, shooting fliers, or delivering lunches, I'll give 3 guesses how long I continue to do that and the first 2 don't count unless it's not long or many more.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Splash_em said:


> Painting with a huge brush there Charlotte.
> 
> My oldest knucklehead was handled by a pro last year for 11 events including the Master National and both Grands. During that time, I judged 12 times, marshalled 3 others, chaired 2 events, and spent 15 vacation days on the road helping at events in 4 states.
> 
> During that time frame said knucklehead was with me, *I handled him or the little crazy man at 15 events.* (Note that you can run 2 events per weekend at the other venue). If it gets to the point that I can't run or handle my dogs as an amateur or have a pro run him while I'm judging, marshalling, shooting fliers, or delivering lunches, I'll give 3 guesses how long I continue to do that and the first 2 don't count unless it's not long or many more.


Yes, I know. Much congrats on your 2nd in the Qual! Dick was very happy for you.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I am not anti pro. Even like some of the dirty bast**** :razz:
I just think, if more people would enter, and run their own dogs, it would be a very good thing.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> So #58 are you suggesting the HT secretary pick and choose who gets in ? Thinking someone would have a legal field day with that one.
> 
> I am a ht secretary and i am thinking i like EE in the middle right now These limit issues are posing definite challenges right now.
> Dk


In the days prior to EE the HTS had to make a lot of decisions. 

Normally you collected all of the entries when they hit your doorstep and tossed them in a box until entries closed, then you held a draw. You can still do the same. The only thing making it a race to be in first is EE.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> If they're going to limit the number of entries, the club (HTS) will have to decide their procedure for the draw as long as it complies with the AKC Regulations and Guidelines for Retriever Hunting Tests.



At the end of the day, have you accomplished anything? You will simply have Fed Ex delivering you 30 pro entries as soon as you open for entries. The fundamental problem remains.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I think the only solution is allowing the clubs more control on how they want to handle the entries...


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Don't even make jokes about that.


Hahahahaha - I've been that poor HTS who had to sort entries and type up catalogs! I'm all set to go...bring on the paper entries!


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> At the end of the day, have you accomplished anything? You will simply have Fed Ex delivering you 30 pro entries as soon as you open for entries. The fundamental problem remains.


Well maybe, maybe not. What you'll probably have is Fed Ex and Express Mail delivering a lot of entries and they all arrive at the same time. The Club will then have to conduct a draw or some other process acceptable to the AKC, to fill the entry quota for the test. That way the club has complied with the rules and everybody has a fair shot at entering the test. 

The traveling road show will likely not enter your test because there is no guarantee that all of the dogs on their truck will get in.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> Hahahahaha - I've been that poor HTS who had to sort entries and type up catalogs! I'm all set to go...bring on the paper entries!


Been there, done that... pre-computer - IBM selectric II and taking to Kinkos for catalogues - old school


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I thinkThe only way to resolve this is for AKC to give the clubs more control over there test and how they want to handle entries, if they choose to have a limit fine, if they choose not to be part of the MN fine, if they want to do a staged or staggered entry giving the O/H (note I didn't say AM. or PRO) first dibs on the spots fine. If a pro has 15 dogs and he only gets 5 entered he may very well say the heck with it and look for another test, he may have to do some traveling, but that's what he does for a living and the additional costs can be split between his clients, they may not like it but it may encourage them to run there own dog and a club may gain a few members in the process. And some clubs may just leave it as is, if that's the case and the test fills up in 10 min. so be it but at least they had the option to make a change.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> Well maybe, maybe not. What you'll probably have is Fed Ex and Express Mail delivering a lot of entries and they all arrive at the same time. The Club will then have to conduct a draw or some other process acceptable to the AKC, to fill the entry quota for the test. That way the club has complied with the rules and everybody has a fair shot at entering the test.
> 
> The traveling road show will likely not enter your test because there is no guarantee that all of the dogs on their truck will get in.



Well, good luck with that. I think you're making a number of assumptions, which I think are incorrect. But, it's your program. I remember the bad old days of paper entries all too well. If you want to return to those days, more power to you. No way would I ever go back.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

We have tests filling up in 10 minutes and limiteds that have been open for awhile and not getting filled. My guess this has more to do with certain regions certainly because of where the MN will be held this year then anything else. heck I have a pro friend of mine that's mad he didn't get entered in a test that filled up very quickly. Just the game we are all playing apparently. All I want is a heads up on opening date and time I'll take my chances with the rest of it.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

FOM said:


> What if we went back to mail in entries which could not be post marked prior to the premium being open for entries? Everyone has to send them in, the owner, not in bulk either? Then we can be pissed at the USPS?
> 
> Wished there was an easy answer...but if it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem with such passionate debate.


This is a real possibility. It makes it hard to enter 30 dogs with the click of a button, but it would not stop those same thirty dogs from being mailed in. I do think that allowing one entry at a time, or even one entry in a certain time like every five minutes on EE would help some. It would at least take a large entry handler more time to enter multiple dogs and give others a chance to slip in.


----------



## Firefighter1 (Aug 15, 2010)

Is it possible to query the AKC to change the 60 dog max per flight? Is it possible to raise the limit to 70 per flight if the judging was tighter or the set ups were tougher, allowing for less dogs to get to the second series? Those extra 10 slots could be saved for the club members. The clubs would bring in more money for the same number of vounteer hours, they wouldn't need more water (actually less time on the available water due to less dogs running in the next two series), and we'd be able to answer to the folks that say there are too many passes at each event, watering down the strength of the MH title. It would force us to ensure our dogs were actually ready to be tested at that level. What do you think?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't think the AKC is open to upping limits per flight. It is within the rules to hold a 3 day Master and the limit is then 90. It would allow 1/3 more dogs an opportunity to run without stretching the grounds. Typically these tests finish in 2 days but not always. The real problem is finding Friday workers & a Friday start requires a vacation day for the working man. This option & argument against was discussed previously.


----------



## CRNAret (Oct 3, 2012)

From Chapter 1 Section 13 Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers _However clubs have the option of using an electronic entry service. Online entries are subject to the same requirements as mail entries. *Additional requirements or conditions may be imposed by the online service*._
Alternate solution could be the establishment of a competitor for EE (blasphemy! you may say) since monopoly is the least efficient form of competition - a new electronic service could impose some form of restricting the number of entries which could be made in one 24 hour period


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Well, good luck with that. I think you're making a number of assumptions, which I think are incorrect. But, it's your program. I remember the bad old days of paper entries all too well. If you want to return to those days, more power to you. No way would I ever go back.


Those who advocate mail in entries have undoubtedly never served as an event secretary.

I have and no one who served as FTS pre EE would ever agree to return to mail in entries


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Firefighter1 said:


> Is it possible to query the AKC to change the 60 dog max per flight?


That is an idea that has real merit, IMO (not that I think the AKC will go along with it). 60 dogs is fairly comfortable for two days. Say you have good efficient workers, but not the grounds to split. You could fairly easily run 70 dogs in two days, especially if the judges are cooperative and have their setups pretty well dialed in. Some clubs could probably run 90 in two days without much trouble. Going to a three day MH is an option, but some folks will have a hard time getting volunteers on Friday. Also, starting on Friday makes it difficult for some of the potential participants.

Think about it like a production line. Say you have the capacity to produce 60 widgets. You could come in and look at your line, find the bottleneck and perhaps increase your output to 70 or 80 without much additional investment. However, the government says that if you want to produce more than 60, you can't de-bottleneck your plant, you have to add an entire additional assembly line. It is silly.

If the AKC is going to continue to let the MN drive the bus, it should at least give the clubs more flexibility to meet whatever demand they can handle in more creative ways. Running more than 60 is probably very do-able for many clubs. What if you got an additional set of judges and had one pair judge a land series, one judge a water series run simultaneously, so that folks aren't sitting around for hours? Then you can work out the land water or whatever. You might be able to do 100 in two days comfortably. I think with a little more flexibility, many of the clubs that set limits could increase those limits somewhat.


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

EdA said:


> Those who advocate mail in entries have undoubtedly never served as an event secretary.
> 
> I have and no one who served as FTS pre EE would ever agree to return to mail in entries


To the contrary of your statement, my wife and I have been field trial secretaries for many years. We continued to be FTS for several years after EE became popular. There are several reasons for this. First, we could save the club money. Second, we could follow AKC rules, which EE does not: example, this week we are hosting a field trial on our property with 104 dogs in the Open. Dog 104 has zero chance to run number 1--this is not a random draw. In the Amateur dog number 1 has 3 times the chance to run first as does dog number 67--again this is not a random draw. There are several other reasons that are valid, but it appears most people overlook the rules when it's for their convenience.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Club in Control*

A MEN, John!
"To each (club) his own".
Good for you & your wife, John. No "Burn Out" in your club or
"the tail wagg'n the dog"!

Bill Connor


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Those who advocate mail in entries have undoubtedly never served as an event secretary.
> 
> I have and no one who served as FTS pre EE would ever agree to return to mail in entries



Been there and done that. No desire to return to the bad old days. There was a reason that the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club was the first club in the country to use Entry Express.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Been there and done that. No desire to return to the bad old days. There was a reason that the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club was the first club in the country to use Entry Express.


You don't miss getting to know the participants a little better when they showed up at your door with an entry in hand?

What about the bad checks? You have to admit that the challenge of sorting that all out gave you an adrenaline rush


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The solution appears on the surface at least to be as easy as apple pie... 

Post the number of slots available , we will use 120 for an example. 
All who wish to run the event, Must enter and pay with a CC. 
After the close, have the draw with all he entries included. 
The first 120 drawn are in .
No scratches without a VALID* reason after the draw
The position of the Valid scratches would be given to the dog with the next number in the order of the draw..

Refund the money of those that did not make the cut

john

*Extenuating circumstances decided in advance and published in the premimum ... If you don't like them don't enter in the first place


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> You don't miss getting to know the participants a little better when they showed up at your door with an entry in hand?
> 
> What about the bad checks? You have to admit that the challenge of sorting that all out gave you an adrenaline rush



You mean the people who showed up on my door step at 6 am? Or the people who gave me their cell phone number, so I could tell them their running numbers? Filling out the post cards that people sent? Sending all that stuff to the AKC? No rush, many headaches.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

Yet another proposal:

Have a limit on Sat/Sun entries (60, 120, whatever). Dogs without an MH have top priority for the Sat/Sun run(s). Every entrant pays by CC.

After the non-MH dogs fill Sat/Sun slots, there is a random draw for the remaining Sat/Sun slots for MH dogs.

BUT, entries for dogs with an MH will be given the option of being moved to a Monday/Tuesday test if they don't get into the Sat/Sun test. The catch is that the Mon/Tues test entry fee is $40 (or so) higher than the Sat/Sun fee. The extra cost for the Mon/Tues test is to cover the cost of additional labor, since many club members cannot volunteer on work days.

The draw for spots will be 2 weeks before the trial. Entrants are informed by email whether they got into the Sat/Sun test. 

If you had indicated on your entry that you would not accept a Mon/Tues slot, you'd be informed that you were entered on Sat/Sun or you were out and your money would be refunded on your CC. 

If you had indicated on your entry form that you would be willing to show on Mon/Tues, and you didn't get into the Sat/Sun test, you would have 4 days to pay the extra cost, which brings the date up to the usual deadline of 10 days before the trial. 

A four-day trial would be more of a headache for the club, but they'd have extra funds to help with the extra days, and a lot of the infrastructure for the test would already be in place for the Mon/Tues test. The porta-potties and equipment would be there, the lease for the ground (if needed) would simply be extended a couple of days.

It's a free-market solution. If people want in that badly, they'd probably be willing to pay the extra charge. It doesn't penalize the pros because the dogs' owners are paying the extra fee. I can see that some pros might not like it because they'd almost certainly be stuck with a 4-day trial, running some dogs Sat/Sun and others Mon/Tues. 

Fundamentally, however, I agree with everyone that says its the MNH structure that is the core of the problem.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

PalouseDogs said:


> A four-day trial would be more of a headache for the club, .


Well there is THAT HUGE UNDERSTATED ISSUE!!!


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

EdA said:


> Those who advocate mail in entries have undoubtedly never served as an event secretary.
> 
> I have and no one who served as FTS pre EE would ever agree to return to mail in entries


Well, hate to dissappoint you Ed, but I have been the event Secretary. Going back to the paper entries is more work for the event secretary but it gives control of the entry situation back to the club, right now, without having to go through the RHTAC rule making process.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Anyone else noticing that the 120 are filling up day of but the 180s still have spots open until close? Looks like they're running @ 150ish could that be the magic #?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I really think people need to look at what Agility is already doing with limited entries.

It has several advantages including the following:

- AKC is already familiar and have approved.
- allows club to reserve a certain amount of spots for workers
- limited spots filled at club's option on either a 1st come 1st served basis or by random draw of entries. (AKC sugests that if the limited spots fill within 24 hrs that they use the random draw method)


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Anyone else noticing that the 120 are filling up day of but the 180s still have spots open until close? Looks like they're running @ 150ish could that be the magic #?


Not true, Bryan/College Station test is this weekend had a limit of 180 dogs. It filled up in a day and a half, had various scratches and other dogs filled those up in the weeks prior to the close. Then apparently after hours there were 8 dogs scratched before closing that were remove the next morning. So it appears that there was space available when that was not so.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> Well, hate to dissappoint you Ed, but I have been the event Secretary. Going back to the paper entries is more work for the event secretary but it gives control of the entry situation back to the club, right now, without having to go through the RHTAC rule making process.


Note that I said FTS (field trial secretary), never having attended a hunt test or been a HTS (hunt test secretary) I did not know that "controlling the entry situation" was important which it must be to take on the arduous task of accepting entries, logging them in, verifying payments, notifying owners their entries were received, and having the catalog printed.

And I am not disappointed...;-)


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Thank everyone for the civil discussion of this matter. After reading the other threads the quote "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" came to mind.

At the end of the day each individual club will have to evaluate their resources and make decisions based on that evaluation.

The quote refers to myself entering a discussion that might have been better left alone.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

fishduck said:


> Thank everyone for the civil discussion of this matter. After reading the other threads the quote "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" came to mind.
> 
> At the end of the day each individual club will have to evaluate their resources and make decisions based on that evaluation.


As will each individual. Even if my club gets out of the MN and/or gives me some type of favoritism on entries, it doesn't benefit me enough. I need to run more than one club to get the MH title. Considering the following:

1. Propose my AKC club get out of the MN business after surveying membership. Drawback is that we may have already run off so many amateurs that our master entries will be low.

2. Go 100% to HRC. I am active in a club and enjoy it. However, I can see the creep in the same direction as AKC.

3. Go to the white coat side and run quals.

4. Just train and hunt


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

A consideration that should also be considered here is how the huge multiple entries per handler are affecting the logistics of the test. MAJOR DISCLAIMER, I am not anti pro-trainer as I train with a pro and have had my dogs handled on occasion by a pro. 

However if you have a handler with 12 entries in a 60 dog stake, that handler is running every fifth dog. If there is an honor and a little walk from the parking lot to the line, this can put a huge crimp in the mechanics or a huge hit in the clubs budget for the by-birds as the judges wait for the handler to get their next dog to the line. And if this handler also has a senior or junior dog that requires them to drive to another stake that may be 5 - 10 miles down the road... this can drive the stake marshals untold headaches. From a judge's perspective, the possibility of a handler running every fifth dog, almost necessitates that the honor be in the first series as that is when you will probably have the most dogs in between your multi-dog handlers.

As is, many handlers will include their pro on the handling line just to assure that they are in the same stake, as the dog may be on the pro's truck, or the desire of the pro's critique of their handling and/or advice on how to handle their dog on the test. 

My recommendation is to limit all handlers to a maximum of 10 dogs being run/day of the test. For example, if junior is run on Saturday and senior on Sunday then the handler could have 8 master dogs, 2 senior dogs and 2 junior dogs entered. At the same time, alter the entry form to allow the handlers to request being in the same stake as their pro or training group/carpool, etc. 

T. Mac


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

clipper said:


> As will each individual. Considering the following:
> 
> 1. Propose my AKC club get out of the MN business after surveying membership. Drawback is that we may have already run off so many amateurs that our master entries will be low.
> 
> ...


Greg,

That is my exact thinking on this matter. Your priorities are the same as what I have worked out in my mind. I am monitoring an akc hunt test in our area for when it goes live. If I miss out I will focus on running HRC and possibly the Grand. Or then just plane out hunt. If I were to take the dollars I would have spent in the AKC venue, I could get a great lease for next year. I would even try a white coat event.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Five days from closing and there are only two derby entries in South TX RC FT on 3/15/14. I think the Q has 1. Am all age has 6. Open less.

Is this normal for FT? Everyone waiting to the last minute to enter?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Five days from closing and there are only two derby entries in South TX RC FT on 3/15/14. I think the Q has 1. Am all age has 6. Open less.
> 
> Is this normal for FT? Everyone waiting to the last minute to enter?



YEP, no reason to hurry, I judged a derby last summer that was around 25 at 11:00 the night of closing, got up in the morning to check and it was close to 50


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Five days from closing and there are only two derby entries in South TX RC FT on 3/15/14. I think the Q has 1. Am all age has 6. Open less.
> 
> Is this normal for FT? Everyone waiting to the last minute to enter?


Completely normal. Most entries come in for FT's in the last 4 hours the event is open. Used to be that way in HT's too, before the MN qualification requirements and limited entries came on the horizon.... Oh, the good ole' days of hoping you got enough entries to break even and sweating it up until the close. Guess AKC fixed THAT issue for us!


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

I haven't read all the recommendations or comments, but can someone explain why AKC set the split such that hunt tests need to split at 60? Is it so the judges can run at least 50% of the dogs in the last series because they only have 2 days to determine if a dog meets the standard?


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

fishduck said:


> We have seen a plethora of solutions & arguments for and against each. Everything from pro vs amateur to lottery systems to entry in steps.
> 
> Clubs limit because of lack of volunteers, lack of grounds or not wanting to deal with the hassle of last minute splits & partially full flights (money). The last two are not going to change. The first has a solution=more volunteers.
> 
> ...


Clubs can, and must, add additional flights if they go over the proscribed limits. That's why many clubs wanted the option to limit entries. I can think of several clubs that simply do not have the land to handle more than 2 master flights. And while your manpower list is correct it does not address the event management issue of coordinating the additional flights, getting additional judges, and on, and on . . . . 
Clubs could close much earlier and give themselves more time to prepare. But that does not change the bottom line. There is only so much land, and only so many volunteers. The solution is more clubs, putting on more events. See the new Mid-Atlantic club in VA which will host it's first HT this spring. The sport is growing and that's a good thing. But growing pains can be a bitch.


----------



## Madluke (Dec 3, 2010)

I've been following this thread with great fascination.
Does your dog know if he's running in a Master National event or non sanctioned regular event ? As an amateur having for the most part trained my dogs myself, I'm quite content training and persuing a MH title at my own pace. I do this for my own enjoyment and time spent with my dogs. They love to train as much as they love running a test. Bottom line is I don't know if we will see the same pressure in the northeast as the southern and western states are experiencing. I can understand the frustration of getting closed out to a goal you are working toward though I welcome the professionals who are part of Hunt testing and value their participation,help and service assisting us all better ourselves to a common bond. Perhaps time will dictate higher entrance fees, lower interest in being a MN club thus opening up multiple lower venue entry opportunities for clubs to run more events and pay our bills or maybe the Master National should be split in pieces around the country just like our events. 
As a regular fella holding a full time career and a love to be outdoors with my dogs I'm loving the journey but have not achieved a MH title as of yet. I don't know how much I care about Master Nationals knowing how much time and work it takes just getting to Master title status as I try to do it primarily on my own. So I'll continue to watch this situation evolve with great interest but my dogs are happy running marks while training or at tests we are able or lucky to enter. As for my club we are happy to do our part with limited entries for now rather than stick pencils in our eyes trying to do the impossible. Sounds like growing pains to me.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

This horse has been soundly beaten. Lots of good suggestions, but, nothing can be done to adopt them here. Either the Retriever Hunt Test Advisory Comm (RHTAC) or the Performance Events Dept at AKC will have to act on the issue(s). The real place to start is with the RHTAC. They can serve as a "bridge" between the clubs and participants and the AKC. Somebody needs to write up the problem and their solution and send it in. That will put the issue on the "docket" and at least the discussion can begin.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Eric Johnson said:


> This horse has been soundly beaten. Lots of good suggestions, but, nothing can be done to adopt them here. Either the Retriever Hunt Test Advisory Comm (RHTAC) or the Performance Events Dept at AKC will have to act on the issue(s). The real place to start is with the RHTAC. They can serve as a "bridge" between the clubs and participants and the AKC. Somebody needs to write up the problem and their solution and send it in. That will put the issue on the "docket" and at least the discussion can begin.


I sent EE a suggestion that was forwarded on to the RTHAC and AKC. It was simply to allow clubs to institute a wait list that would automatically fill pre-closing scratches as they occur. It won't make more land and resources available for clubs that have practical limits. And it won't totally resolve the problem for folks that miss an opening. But it will make it easier and more equitable for folks to to fill in for those that decide not to run before entries close. Should be easy for EE to administer. If you think it has merit let the RTHAC know. Small steps. 

Bob Swift


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> This horse has been soundly beaten. Lots of good suggestions, but, nothing can be done to adopt them here. Either the Retriever Hunt Test Advisory Comm (RHTAC) or the Performance Events Dept at AKC will have to act on the issue(s). The real place to start is with the RHTAC. They can serve as a "bridge" between the clubs and participants and the AKC. Somebody needs to write up the problem and their solution and send it in. That will put the issue on the "docket" and at least the discussion can begin.


I agree that this thread, as well as several others, have exhausted just about all remedies that could help clubs deal with the problem of tests being monopolized by a few individuals with large strings of dogs.

I would point out, though, that these measures deal with the symptoms and not the problem itself. And that's a shame, because the problem is to the detriment of the sport. Of course, that's just my opinion.-Paul


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

# 104 has good points and it could work today prior to closing. 
However EE likely would have added overhead and maybe programing cost. Are we as a group willing to pay for that. 

I think today if someone enters and then withdraws before closing those spots open up. I hope the event secretary's arent trying to choose the replacements. After the close well the event is closed 
And i wouldnt think that will change 
Dk


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> I agree that this thread, as well as several others, have exhausted just about all remedies that could help clubs deal with the problem of tests being monopolized by a few individuals with large strings of dogs.
> 
> I would point out, though, that these measures deal with the symptoms and not the problem itself. And that's a shame, because the problem is to the detriment of the sport. Of course, that's just my opinion.-Paul


Paul 

What do you consider to be the underlying problem?

Ted


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I didn't include EE as a "solution agents" because they can act on their own. For instance, much is made of the VIP Entry Service. This isn't required by the regulations and could be dropped or changed if EE simply were to decide to do it. Of course, this would take work and I've not known EE to look for work. After all, work might cause them to break a fingernail. (There, my pet peeve is out of the way.)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Perhaps you all missed this one http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...tical-aspect&p=1193148&viewfull=1#post1193148


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

How about 2 closing dates for Limited entry test?

First close is 3 weeks prior to the test. No individual may be listed as a handler or co-handler for more than 10% of the entry(ie 6 dogs for a 60 dog limit))
After this date anyone can enter any number of dogs, or additional dogs, as space allows until the normal close date roughly12 days prior to the test.

Easier than a wait list.
JMO

Tim


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I don't think this one has been brought up....NO refunds once you are entered ,(unless bitch in season or injury) even if the event has not closed...... DISCLAIMER I have not thought through this at all , but just popped into my head


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> What do you consider to be the underlying problem?
> 
> Ted


Hi Ted,

I think the problem is how dogs get qualified to run the MN test. As the event rotates thru the regions, Clubs witihin the region hosting the event are inundated with Master entries. In recent years, there have been right around 800 qualified dogs. This probably equates to 6000+ Master test entries, most of which are concentrated within the host Region. This year it is Region 4's turn. Next year it will be Region 1, and so on.

I have no problem with the MN itself, but I don't like the way the event impacts the weekend tests and the clubs that organize and host the tests.-Paul


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

This situation really sounds like an economics 101 case study in supply and demand, when the demand outstrips supply, prices rise to reduce demand, increased profits flowing from increased prices provide incentive for new production and increase supply which intersect with demand and restore market equilibrium.

"why aren't club's raising their entry fees?"


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

blind ambition said:


> This situation really sounds like an economics 101 case study in supply and demand, when the demand outstrips supply, prices rise to reduce demand, increased profits flowing from increased prices provide incentive for new production and increase supply which intersect with demand and restore market equilibrium.
> 
> "why aren't club's raising their entry fees?"


nonprofits


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

blind ambition said:


> This situation really sounds like an economics 101 case study in supply and demand, when the demand outstrips supply, prices rise to reduce demand, increased profits flowing from increased prices provide incentive for new production and increase supply which intersect with demand and restore market equilibrium.
> 
> "why aren't club's raising their entry fees?"


Price isn't the only component of that equation or the only way to satisfy demand. . 

In economies or with regard to goods and services, who raises price with the goal of reducing demand anyway?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTEThis situation really sounds like an economics 101 case study in supply and demand, when the demand outstrips supply, prices rise to reduce demand, increased profits flowing from increased prices provide incentive for new production and increase supply which intersect with demand and restore market equilibrium.

"why aren't club's raising their entry fees?"][/QUOTE]

My guess is if you did that,,,that mostly pro run dogs would show up since most of their customers could handle the price increase.
The weekend warrior may not and that's who the game was made for.

There really is a simple solution as long as you cn accept that life ain't fair.

Pete


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I don't think this one has been brought up....NO refunds once you are entered ,(unless bitch in season or injury) even if the event has not closed...... DISCLAIMER I have not thought through this at all , but just popped into my head


Other than mandated refunds for bitches in season, injury, etc. clubs are free to formulate their refund policy as long as that policy is published in advance. (Quoting the rule book from memory.) The full refund prior to closing w/o penalty is an EE policy and presumably could be changed at a club's request. Before we started using EE our club's policy was that once an entry and payment were received they became "the property of the club" and were subject to the standard AKC regs. Otherwise if you pulled out just before closing you were out the fee. We have not bothered to request a change in the EE policy because the issues that caused us to go with the no-refund policy resolved themselves.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

In a Hunting Test, Is the name on the EE entry required to be the person actually handling the dog?

What's to stop owners from each entering their own dogs and then on game day, one handler shows up with all of them?

A lot of well-intentioned solutions involving some sort of restriction on "people" ... pros, amateurs with multiple dogs, etc., etc. ... but all leave ways to be circumvented. And the problem will remain; "not enough entry spots for the number of people who want to enter so some will get shut out".

Seems like a viable approach would be to create more tests that are not attractive to the large masses;



> Let's take the emphasis off "pros" (read: those with a large number of entries) and focus on the test itself. What if every Master National Club were required to put on one test per year that did NOT qualify for MN. This could be one of their customary 2 per year OR it could be in addition. Club's choice.
> 
> This would drastically thin out the entries at those tests and provide an opportunity for those who are just chasing the MH and not interested in the National test. Opportunities for those wanting to qualify for the MN would be fewer, but that might be a good thing, IMO. Maybe there wouldn't be 700 or 800 dogs qualifying each year and those that need a dozen tries to qualify will just have to try again next year. (There ARE some who think the MN is in danger of losing some prestige as more and more dogs are qualifying.)
> 
> ...




JS


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

I don't have a solution for the problem, however, I can offer my opinion.

The closest master HT to me is a two hour drive. I have made the two hour drive and my dog went out in the first series (first dog that ran) and I stayed the remainder of the weekend to help with the HT. I was already there and had already booked a room, etc. If I'm at a HT and the hosting club needs someone to pitch in and help out then I will gladly offer to help out in any capacity needed. If I'm a member of the club hosting the event then I expect to be assisting in some capacity all weekend.

Now, if I attempt to enter an event and its already filled up, then don't expect to see this amateur/weekend warrior marshalling, shooting fliers, throwing marks, etc. for you. I will be somewhere else enjoying myself. I'm not going to donate an entire weekend and spend a couple hundred bucks just so I can work for free for two days so that others may participate in an event that I was unable to enter due to entries being limited.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> I sent EE a suggestion that was forwarded on to the RTHAC and AKC. It was simply to allow clubs to institute a wait list that would automatically fill pre-closing scratches as they occur. It won't make more land and resources available for clubs that have practical limits. And it won't totally resolve the problem for folks that miss an opening. But it will make it easier and more equitable for folks to to fill in for those that decide not to run before entries close. Should be easy for EE to administer. If you think it has merit let the RTHAC know. Small steps.
> 
> Bob Swift


I have already sent EE a reguest to add a waiting list to handle pre-closing scratches, just like you have. I think other clubs should put pressure on them as well...from a programming standpoint it would be very easy to do. The problem as I see it is competition...there is NONE. Man, I wish I had the time because now would be the time to do it.

At our next club meeting, we are going to discuss making a recommendation to push up the ladder to allow the Hunt Test Secretary to accept entries after close to fill scratches. The waiting list from EE, if it is implemented, could be passed on to the club. Something else other clubs may want to consider suggesting. This does not solve the limited entries issue, but at least allows clubs to get very close to filling their 60/90/120 dog limits without losing out on funds due to late scratches.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Lonnie Spann said:


> I don't have a solution for the problem, however, I can offer my opinion.
> 
> The closest master HT to me is a two hour drive. I have made the two hour drive and my dog went out in the first series (first dog that ran) and I stayed the remainder of the weekend to help with the HT. I was already there and had already booked a room, etc. If I'm at a HT and the hosting club needs someone to pitch in and help out then I will gladly offer to help out in any capacity needed. If I'm a member of the club hosting the event then I expect to be assisting in some capacity all weekend.
> 
> ...


Excellent summary of the possible ramifications of excluding Amateur participation. 
My stance on this issue is that I want an equal chance to get entered as everyone else. I don't want to have to monitor EE 24 hrs a day to know when that 8 minute window of opportunity to enter is going to happen. Additionally I dont type nearly as fast as most, so I'm not sure I'd do well in an 8 minute typing race. I didn't spend a yr and a half & countless hours driving 1000's of miles to find adequate training groups and facilities to get my dog ready to run a Master test to be excluded because I couldn't get in. We are supposed to be testing dog and handler abilities: not computer monitoring or typing skills of the owner/handlers or their pros

Lonnies post illuminates the dangers of having actual Ams; who are the ones who can work and actually put on the test, excluded from even entering their dog. He makes a valid point about the need to reserve spots for Ams; after al the game was invented for the Ams.

I'm in the same boat as Lonnie, my days of working tests that I'm excluded from entering are over. Call us selfish if you want. To me it is just logical; I have better things to do with my time than to be an unpaid volunteer so that a Pro can make money running his string of dogs. If I were a pro, Id be very concerned about killing the goose that is laying his golden egg


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> I sent EE a suggestion that was forwarded on to the RTHAC and AKC. It was simply to allow clubs to institute a wait list that would automatically fill pre-closing scratches as they occur. It won't make more land and resources available for clubs that have practical limits. And it won't totally resolve the problem for folks that miss an opening. But it will make it easier and more equitable for folks to to fill in for those that decide not to run before entries close. Should be easy for EE to administer. If you think it has merit let the RTHAC know. Small steps.
> 
> Bob Swift


Excellent idea and I'll see if I can get my club to forward it to RHTAC. As for Entry Express not being willing to do the extra work: they're making a killing off the scratch fees; seems like that should be more than adequate for it to be implemented.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

mjh345 said:


> nonprofits


Curiously, nonprofit status does not mean that the entity can't earn a profit, although that's not what they call it. I'm not sure why nonprofit status means clubs can't raise entry fees. 

Now, the risk that increased entry fees is at least as much a deterrent for amateurs as not being able to get into limited entry tests is worth looking at IMHO.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> Excellent idea and I'll see if I can get my club to forward it to RHTAC. As for Entry Express not being willing to do the extra work: they're making a killing off the scratch fees; seems like that should be more than adequate for it to be implemented.


I would be surprised if EE makes money off scratch fees. You would be surprised at how little money EE actually generates.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ed and I, and others looked at a similar problem with Field Trials many years ago. There is no magic pill that solves all issues. Fairness is a matter of what you think is fair.

For example

Random Entry
- It is random
- But does not address worker issue. If your workers don't get in with random entry, will they work?

Worker Preference
- Who defines worker
- What happens to people who work - but at a different trial in a different part of the country

Amateur Preference
- Who defines amateur
- Is a handler with 4 dogs an amateur (or to put it another way, why favor an amateur with 5 dogs over a pro with 4?)
- Will you drive away pros and lose money?

Raise entry fees
- Hurt middle class participant
- May eliminate workers

Frankly, I think AKC will only approve of random entry. But, I could be wrong.


----------

