RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Letter of suggestions concerning Limited Entries.

28K views 132 replies 59 participants last post by  Good Dogs 
#1 ·
A letter concerning our suggestions for Limited Entries is posted on my Facebook page at Castile Creek Kennels. This letter was sent to Mr. Bill Teague.

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

Thank you for your time.

Lyle
 
#5 ·
You don't have to have a FB account to view it. Here is a link:

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

This is the letter we sent.

RE: Suggestions for the limited entries problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,
Lyle Steinman
Jack Morris
Ray Shanks
Doug Shade
Proud members of The Professional Retriever Training Association
 
#4 ·
I think the mileage limitations will help a lot. Our club didn't even have a spring test this year because we could not get a date that worked for us because of some tests that are right at 200 miles and hardly anyone that enters those don't enter ours anyway. Our club is also limited because the land we lease is also farmed and we only have a short window to avoid having problems with crop planting in the spring. No mileage will free us up to have the test at the best time. I know this is only our issue but it will also help with entries I believe.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Some good suggestions, some questionable ones. The fee schedule is ridiculous! You want to punish clubs that for one reason of another have to limit entries. $18 per dog times 60 dogs.... $1080 fee to the AKC because we have to limit our test? Sorry that is idiotic! If we had an extra $1000 maybe each club could lease more land, hire more help etc.

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

EDIT***
I am not seriously proposing the fee schedule above used it mainly as an illustration. Like I said a lot of the ideas aren't bad, I hope you can tell how I feel about the fees though.
 
#7 ·
Some good suggestions, some questionable ones. The fee schedule is ridiculous! You want to punish clubs that for one reason of another have to limit entries. $18 per dog times 60 dogs.... $1080 fee to the AKC because we have to limit our test? Sorry that is idiotic! If we had an extra $1000 maybe each club could lease more land, hire more help etc.

Perhaps a more logical solution resides with the Pros. Limit the amount of dogs you can enter per test. Or we can alter the fee schedule as an example: the first six dogs on your truck entered pay the normal entry fee, after that tack on an additional $50 per dog for the next 6, then anything over 12 dogs entered is an additional $100. I guess is what I am trying to say is this, why punish the clubs and volunteers so a big name pro can make his living? We are the ones volunteering so you can make a living, I don't have a problem with that at all. Everyone needs to eat, and if you can make a living in the outdoors out of an office doing what you love great. But damn kill the club that wants to hold a test, get a freaking clue.... you are biting the hand that feeds and it is eventually going to hurt.
I agree, don't punish the club for being successful. I have a similar problem with your suggestion regarding pros, you act as if it only hurts the pro. The reality in most cases is that the pro is the surrogate handler for many owners, who for one reason or another can't attend that hunt test. Your proposal would put each pro in a very awkward position of having to choose which owner to piss off each weekend. I know I would be very upset if my dog was on a pro truck for a winter circuit, and my dog had to sit on the truck all weekend while my pro ran other dogs.
 
#8 · (Edited)
The last senior test I ran had 24 entries and 4 of those were scratched. The last junior had 22. Last year those same two tests had over double that in them. Why would you want to limit the amount of entries in those events? Seems to me that you are going to take away any incentive for a beginning trainer like me to enter a hunt test, or get any experience running in one. Understand we are not all pros, and have to start somewhere. I know I'm not ready to run either of my dogs in a master level event. What I'm seeing is less entries in these level tests means that people like myself are giving up on the sport, or waiting for their dog and themselves to be trained well enough to enter a master. Where did you start?
 
#10 ·
I don't understand the logic in the fee schedules. Some clubs have limited land and can only put on a smaller test. In turn what would happen is you would end up with less tests! I know our club lost land after our last double master and now we can not offer it until we find more available land.

The HT Pro's will suffer if more clubs decide opt out of the Master National Club. If our club wanted to really limit our numbers we would do just that, drop out of the Master National Club.
 
#11 ·
I don't understand the logic in the fee schedules. Some clubs have limited land and can only put on a smaller test. In turn what would happen is you would end up with less tests! I know our club lost land after our last double master and now we can not offer it until we find more available land.

The HT Pro's will suffer if more clubs decide opt out of the Master National Club. If our club wanted to really limit our numbers we would do just that, drop out of the Master National Club.
Mike, what did you lose? Sorry to hear that.
 
#13 ·
I apologize for my comments here in advance if I don't share your same position but just want to share some helpful thoughts that are solely my personal thoughts. I feel that the biggest issue is that there are so many dogs running Master tests that are already titled and either just running because they have nothing else to do or they are running to qualify for the Nationals (I personally don't see any value in a dog that has passed 6 MH tests over one that has passed 50). This is agravating to me (my personal thought) as these dogs are quickly taking the spots that are meant for individuals trying to achieve that goal of MH and you already have. I don't mean to take away from anyone and their reason for running but I am suggesting that perhaps the field limit the number of entries for dogs that have already titled or have already met their national qualifying requirement. My opinion is that there needs to be a way to keep a path into this event for why HT's were originally created. Again these are my sole thoughts and am only offering ideas and not condemning the thoughts of others. Does anyone have any information on whether we are gaining both dog owners and handlers at the MH level or is it simply the same people running?
 
#15 ·
In order to have the proposed additional and or larger events, it would require each club to have more help to manage each event. Most clubs currently struggle to manage events at the current size. Although we are supposed to be an amateur sport, ARC's last event had 85 of 140 running dogs come off pro's trucks. We were very fortunate that several of those pros helped us manage our event. However, this is often not the case, and we all must remember that we must all do our part to make these events successful. Otherwise, there will be no events to run.

I know for a fact in Atlanta we limit our events because of limited help not land.
 
#21 ·
Around here we had a non-MN club fill up Master within an hour of opening. I do think there are good valid suggestions in your letter Lyle et al, and thank you for putting it in writing. You guys have some great suggestions other than tacking on punitive fees to a club that has to limit master entries. NOT a good idea IMO because it will unfairly penalize clubs, that rarely make much of a profit on these tests. Make it so a club will lose money on a master test and guess what? It'll stop having them.

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

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

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

The other suggestion that was whole heartedly endorsed from an informal poll last wkd. at our test is one that is a policy with agility trials that are allowed to limit entries. A club needs to be able to hold a certain number of spots open for its own members. We had a few members who did not get in our master that filled 10 minutes after opening, among them some of our best workers. Fortunately they were able to get in, but how likely are club workers to show up and work their butts off all weekend if they cannot get in? How likely are they going to help out at their neighboring clubs if they cannot get in those tests? What is happening now is hurting the very ones who volunteer their time and weekends to make the tests possible.
 
#23 ·
Back to the original topic, I think a lot of the grumbling from "non pros" could be avoided if a club were allowed to send in fully completed and paid for entries with their final judge list and other info. needed for the "opening" that are reserved for confirmed workers and club members, officers that actually work, and are needed for the admin. duties that are necessary to run an event. These should be non refundable under any circumstances.
Couple this policy with EE having a waiting list and many of the entry issues will go away. As always and human nature, there will be those that will try to skirt the spirit of the law, but that is unavoidable.
JMHO
MP
 
#25 ·
Some very good ideas but quite a few not so good ideas coming from the pros. A couple ideas here. Limit the number of dogs a pro can run like HRC. Charge the pros more if they're stepping off the truck with certain numbers of dogs. Also require the pros running a certain number of dogs to facilitate a bird boy or two if they have in excess a certain number of dogs. Have the pros be required to host judging seminars and assist in mentoring new judges. Judges are becoming an extremely difficult thing to find. With the new excessive rules to become a judge, the number of qualified judges is getting smaller. Also opening entries up to owner/handlers prior to pros would suffice in bringing the game back to amateurs.

Charging the the clubs extra from AKC is just silly. AKC doesn't provide much in the way of assistance to the clubs, maybe they should start giving money back to clubs that host tests without limited entries.
 
#26 ·
The suggestion that dbl headers not be able to start on the same day is a return to previous policy. Don't know why AKC changed it, but it makes sense to stage out the events to avoid the inevitable cluster w/ 2 events starting at once.
$$ penalties for clubs that limit entries? Sorry, but that's a stupid idea that will only -as noted above - piss off folks. Besides, the penalty would just be tacked on to the entry fee so who winds up getting penalized?
The wait list proposal has already been made to the RHTAC and should be easy to implement.
The mileage limit should not be a problem as any club can waive objection.
The other ideas are all, IMO, sound, but you left off the the suggestion that clubs be allowed to limit the number of dogs any single individual can handle. HTs were not intended to be shows put on by club members for the financial benefit of pros, or for those not able or willing to run their own dogs. And I say that with all due respect to the individuals submitting the letter. All good guys. But leave some run for the amateurs.
The real solution is to add events. Perhaps the HT pros could take a cue from the PRTA and start a regional HTPRTA in each time zone?

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

Bob Swift
 
#27 ·
The suggestion that dbl headers not be able to start on the same day is a return to previous policy. Don't know why AKC changed it, but it makes sense to stage out the events to avoid the inevitable cluster w/ 2 events starting at once.
$$ penalties for clubs that limit entries? Sorry, but that's a stupid idea that will only -as noted above - piss off folks. Besides, the penalty would just be tacked on to the entry fee so who winds up getting penalized?
The wait list proposal has already been made to the RHTAC and should be easy to implement.
The mileage limit should not be a problem as any club can waive objection.
The other ideas are all, IMO, sound, but you left off the the suggestion that clubs be allowed to limit the number of dogs any single individual can handle. HTs were not intended to be shows put on by club members for the financial benefit of pros, or for those not able or willing to run their own dogs. And I say that with all due respect to the individuals submitting the letter. All good guys. But leave some run for the amateurs.
The real solution is to add events. Perhaps the HT pros could take a cue from the PRTA and start a regional HTPRTA in each time zone?

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

Bob Swift
In the south the FT pros have really stepped up and added field trials to help out. It would be great to see that done in AKC Hunting Tests.
 
#28 ·
For the published letter to BT I applaud the action as it takes courage to be a leader! Your letter exposes each of you and somewhat your clients to a suggested course of action. While I personally dont agree with each suggestion the group is commended on seeking solutions!

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

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

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

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

Peanut.Clause. I love Mcdonalds, the food is cheap fast, and addicting; but it's not a rib-eyes steak. Mcnuggets RULE :)
 
#30 ·
I think Julie had a very good idea to let people entry to fill the scratches. I work my butt off at our last ht unable to run my own dog, mean while thinking I wish I had one of the spots that was a scratch.

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

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

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

I think the lack of new amateur able to run there dogs will only this problem worse. There is nothing to adress these problem.
 
#31 ·
For # 30 and to address your question about
Judges.
My first thought is there are adequate numbers of judges however likely there has been no study on the numbers. An average ht would need about 10 judges and if there are 5 events around the nation thats 50 judges and if this goes on 40 weeks that is 2000 judges if all judged one time.

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

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

Our sport is discretionary income so lets enjoy it, make it fun and recall why we are doing this. It may have started out as something to do between hunting seasons but it is different today. Families are running around, kids playing, junior handlers, Nationals to attend and dog friends spread across the Nation.
Someone said " enjoy the ride"
Dk
 
#32 ·
Want to enter a master test when yours is full come to UT. HT and DQ next weekend 38 Qual dogs 37 Master dogs entries closed last Monday. Another HT DQ the following weekend closes today and the entries as of now stand at 19 qual dogs and 17 Masters. Well on second thought don't come to UT I like it the way it is.
Lots of complaints about Masters filling up quick and occasionally we hear that FT need new blood. Well my response to that is (and I'm sure some or a lot will think Im out in left field) is do away with the Master National. All it does is keep people chasing Master passes and keeps them from trying to jump to the next level and try the qual. I couldn't imagine going and running the MN with 800 or 900 dogs qualified, no thanks! Again on second thought I like things as is just fine, plenty of qual dogs and plenty of Master dogs.
 
#33 ·
Got it #32 and you have a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

And in addition to my working two 12 hour days, we should pay a $1000 fine for not accommodating more entries?
 
#35 ·
My sentiments exactly. If a proposal that idiotic even makes it out to the club delegates for a vote, my outlook on this whole thing will be greatly tarnished.

I've got better ways to spend vacation days than being on test grounds from Friday through Sunday.
 
#36 ·
Thank you Lyle and your group for much needed dialog. Your letter deserves a point by point look. Here are some comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rig
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top