The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 158

Thread: AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?

  1. #91
    Senior Member limiman12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Red Oak Iowa
    Posts
    1,495

    Default

    Two tier open........ First week, or three days whatever, the test is open, no more then five dogs per handler. After that fair game. Best of both worlds. Gives us working stiffs a chance to get into tests as long as we check periodically..... Lets pros fill a test up.
    Fritz Baier
    owned, trained and handled by:

    GMHRCH-II MPR Baier's Mighty Waldimar
    MHR CPR Baier's Lady Gabrielle
    4 X GMPR MHR Baier's Lady Legacy of Tru Point MH Certified Therapy Dog

  2. #92
    Senior Member Moose Mtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Bennett, Colorado
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Limiman, while to some that may look like it would work... What about those of us with young dogs with a pro.... their first couple Master Tests? The trainer is going to have to get the dogs that he is qualifying to MN's in first.. but those of us waiting to run a Master test the first few times might not be able to get in.

    Honestly.. Im not opposed to (GASP) increasing the entry fee to help clubs be able to afford to do this.. if costs of the Judges/help is the issue.. then that needs to be addressed.

    This is a growing sport... and those of us without the ability/time/or background to train a Master level dog... or just plain like the results our trainer provides... these individuals should not be penalized. Start making it seem to be unfair for those with young dogs, and this sport will not see the growth.

    Limiting pros isnt the answer. I dont know what is.

    In rodeo, we have a pre-set and advertised opening for a rodeo. It might be Thursday at 2pm.... This seems to give folks the best chance.. If they NEED in, they make time in their schedule to be at a computer or on the phone to Pro-Com to get entered. Its a rush and quite hectic.. but everyone knows.
    Brian & Jennifer Tucker
    Bennett, Colorado

    Marks-A-Lot Babyface (2003 HR CH Marks A Lot Gangster QAA MNH CD WCX x Marks-A-Lot Call Me Cathy)

    Marks-A-Lot Gangster's Midnite Star SH (2012 HR CH Marks A Lot Gangster QAA MNH CD WCX X Crabby Patty JH)

    Dixie's Crimson Tide MH (Yup...a Golden!)

    Marks-A-Lot's Irish Boy- AKA"The Pup"

  3. #93
    Senior Member HNTFSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,194

    Default

    What's interesting is that most posts or feelings on the topic are about LIMITING (and Pro's in particular) instead of expanding to solve the problem.

    There are only so many clubs...so many judges...so many workers...so much ground. But opportunity may be limited by the number of tests that can accommodate the handler/dogs vying for a MN run.

    As I recall (might be wrong) tests cannot be held on the same dates if two clubs are within 200 miles of each other. Tests must include at last two levels of stakes. A MN club may not hold a MN qualified versus non-MN qualified master test. I am not sure if there is a limit to the number of events a club can run in a 12 month period.

    We could probably squeeze out a big multi-stake Master event but we wouldn't have room for JH/SH therefore - no dice. We have to be mindful of our club events in not scheduling or changing dates of our test.

    Tests are to run dogs, make money for the club. Instead of limiting the we should consider accommodating the opportunity.

    This momentum is good for the sport overall, the number of dogs, handlers and interest in HT's. As well, a bit of visibility to State Land managers, local economies and young people who may be recruited to work the sport.

    If folks seek change, let's do so to accommodate more, not limit livelihoods and people who contribute to something that others would like to see go away.
    Last edited by HNTFSH; 02-02-2014 at 10:05 AM.
    We shoot dogs with a Canon

  4. #94
    Senior Member Bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    S.W. Washington
    Posts
    3,422

    Default

    DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
    Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
    Seems pretty simple and fair to me.

    This is a finite world that we live in and we are at the limits of finding new grounds/help/time/energy/whatever. Sure is interesting that the folks that are most interested in seeing the availability increase without bounds are also the same ones that don't have the time/energy/background/inclination to help out.



    All about fairness regards

    Bubba

    This
    Last edited by Bubba; 02-02-2014 at 11:05 AM.
    There are three classes of people: those who see...those who see when shown...and those who do not see. - Leonardo da Vinci

  5. #95
    Senior Member HNTFSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
    Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
    Seems pretty simple and fair to me.

    This is a finite world that we live in and we are at the limits of finding new grounds/help/time/energy/whatever. Sure is interesting that the folks that are most interested in seeing the availability increase without bounds are also the same ones that don't have the time/energy/background/inclination to help out.



    All about fairness regards

    Bubba

    This
    As I asked Fallon - how does that work? You have EE and AKC to figure in, not to mention the appearance of favoritism. And those 'eliminations' of a dog or two might create more scratch. And what about those 'non-club' entrants from neighboring areas? Joe has two dogs and doesn't belong to the club?

    I think it's easy to propose hand-picking at face value but I haven't seen anyone actually propose the full process, both technically and within the confines of AKC or EE processes.
    We shoot dogs with a Canon

  6. #96
    Senior Member Handler Error's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas D View Post
    Wouldn't part of the problem be solved if the HT secretary sent a group e mail to all club members that the HT was now open on EE.
    I know some clubs do that now.
    The clubs shouldn't be giving anyone a heads up.

    Would it be possible to post it in your premium that entries will open at a certain time? Could EE develop a standard entry open time for all events? If everyone knows an event will open at a certain time, than everyone has the same chance to get in. There's no chance for any wrong doing.

  7. #97
    Senior Member HNTFSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Handler Error View Post
    The clubs shouldn't be giving anyone a heads up.

    Would it be possible to post it in your premium that entries will open at a certain time? Could EE develop a standard entry open time for all events? If everyone knows an event will open at a certain time, than everyone has the same chance to get in. There's no chance for any wrong doing.
    You are correct - it will require assistance and cooperation from EE and the AKC to resolve a limiting issue.
    We shoot dogs with a Canon

  8. #98
    Senior Member 2tall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taos, New Mexico
    Posts
    8,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HNTFSH View Post
    As I asked Fallon - how does that work? You have EE and AKC to figure in, not to mention the appearance of favoritism. And those 'eliminations' of a dog or two might create more scratch. And what about those 'non-club' entrants from neighboring areas? Joe has two dogs and doesn't belong to the club?

    I think it's easy to propose hand-picking at face value but I haven't seen anyone actually propose the full process, both technically and within the confines of AKC or EE processes.
    I don't get this. Looked like a pretty good idea to me, even if it takes a little leg and phone work. What do "non-club" entrants have to do with it? I would imagine they are treated exactly the same as any other entrant with more than one dog. You take the one he's entered first in the first draw. His second one gets picked in the second round if not filled by then. Where is the favoritism? And why do you assume that EE and AKC would not be willing to help institute a workable solution? They have the software, etc. Just wondering why you are so negative on the idea.
    Carol,
    Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
    Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
    Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
    http://newhoperetrievers.com

  9. #99
    Senior Member HNTFSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2tall View Post
    I don't get this. Looked like a pretty good idea to me, even if it takes a little leg and phone work. What do "non-club" entrants have to do with it? I would imagine they are treated exactly the same as any other entrant with more than one dog. You take the one he's entered first in the first draw. His second one gets picked in the second round if not filled by then. Where is the favoritism? And why do you assume that EE and AKC would not be willing to help institute a workable solution? They have the software, etc. Just wondering why you are so negative on the idea.
    It's not a solution that I can see has merit without other factors being applied. How would you allow an entry, allow a draw and then cancel the entry? As a club - without a huge manual coordination between a club and EE? Not to mention without an arrangement with AKC?

    You are suggesting a club secretary be the sole 'fairness' factor in who gets in. Who monitors that? Who audits it?

    How do you factor in the guy that waits till late in the open entry process versus the guy the was on top of it and was first in?
    We shoot dogs with a Canon

  10. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    143

    Default

    [QUOTE=Bubba;1184512]DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
    Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
    Seems pretty simple and fair to me.

    This is a finite world that we live in and we are at the limits of finding new grounds/help/time/energy/whatever. Sure is interesting that the folks that are most interested in seeing the availability increase without bounds are also the same ones that don't have the time/energy/background/inclination to help out.



    All about fairness regards


    I LIKE IT!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •