The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Dividing the hunt test pro/ am

  1. #11
    Senior Member Cass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Posts
    160

    Default

    I don't see the point to a pro vs an amateur hunt test system. The dog either meets the standard or it doesn't. After reading other posts in this forum though I think that there should definitely be a limit to how many dogs a handler can enter.

  2. #12
    Senior Member BIG DOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NE TX
    Posts
    524

    Default

    It's not changing the standard, it's more about letting the working class play.
    The average person can't baby sit a computer with finger on the send button?

    Limiting the handler won't work, the trainer just hires 2-3 handlers to run the other dogs.
    You might limit the kennel, say 10 dogs per kennel or what ever the umber is

    Just my opinion
    Last edited by BIG DOG; 06-15-2014 at 11:19 AM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Rick_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario, CA
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    With all the posts about clubs barely breaking even on hunt tests due in large part to a lack of help, and some clubs recently even cancelling tests because of a lack of help, I don't think the answer is more stakes. And it's hard enough for hunt test clubs to get help on the weekends, if Friday starts became a normal thing, who's going to show up to work two or more events a year?
    Rick Curtis ~ Currently in Ontario, CA by way of Spokane, WA and Northern CA.

    Little Man Caught It On The River SH ~ "Ace"

    Handlers Handle, Dogs Dog, Judges Judge

    "If you train a young dog for momentum, precision will arrive. If you train for precision, demanding perfection, momentum will depart."
    ~Rex Carr

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    693

    Default

    For quite a few years my husband was a co-chair for a field trial in CA. We always started on Friday. We actually started the Amateur, Open and either Q or Derby all on Friday. We hired help. The local high school wrestling coach at one point lent us the whole team and gave them extra curricular credit. Their earnings helped finance the team trips, etc. It can be done.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Good Dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    When the problem is lack of grounds, help or other constraints, adding additional stakes is no answer. If the clubs could handle additional stakes there would not be the problem some have. Limiting the number of dogs any single individual can enter/handle would cut back on the large strings. While some kennels may be able to hire additional help that at least means a smoother run as marshals don't have to worry about how to manage a single handler string of 20 dogs. And it might mean that more owners will elect to run their own dog rather than have a "B" team handler. Getting more owners to the line would be good for the sport.
    Last, the idea of allowing clubs to run an OH/HT is interesting. I think they would find their entries would go way down, but if it makes sense for a club, let 'em try it.
    The process for implementing any regulation changes has been discussed here often. While we can thrash things to death on this board none of that advances a solution until clubs/individuals formulate a proposal and start the process of working the RHTAC.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Dogs View Post
    When the problem is lack of grounds, help or other constraints, adding additional stakes is no answer. If the clubs could handle additional stakes there would not be the problem some have. Limiting the number of dogs any single individual can enter/handle would cut back on the large strings. While some kennels may be able to hire additional help that at least means a smoother run as marshals don't have to worry about how to manage a single handler string of 20 dogs. And it might mean that more owners will elect to run their own dog rather than have a "B" team handler. Getting more owners to the line would be good for the sport.
    Last, the idea of allowing clubs to run an OH/HT is interesting. I think they would find their entries would go way down, but if it makes sense for a club, let 'em try it.
    The process for implementing any regulation changes has been discussed here often. While we can thrash things to death on this board none of that advances a solution until clubs/individuals formulate a proposal and start the process of working the RHTAC.
    Bingo! Well said Bob. If change to the H/T program needs to happen it all must come from the RHTAC. One thing that clubs should consider would be a be a rule change that required every handler to work four hours. If they are not able to then the price of their entry should be higher to cover the cost of paid help. Average Master entry $80.00 if you work, $95.00 if you do not. It will not hurt the Pro as it is part of the cost of doing business. It might even inspire some of their clients to get involved it the sport. I do know the MNRC expects everyone to help. If it works for them why not at the local club level!!!
    w. price

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Florida near GA.
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Firstly I don't believe the Pro is the problem, this is simply demand exceeding supply. Has anyone gone through the process to put this in a proposal and more importantly work through the logistics of managing a Open and Amateur Hunt Test? How will it work for clubs with limited grounds or clubs with limited workers etc. It is easy to make suggestions on the internet when someone else does the work. And I just missed a HT that opened and filled in a few hours. It's call limited and the clubs voted for the change. Going to go train.
    Ed Wojciechowski

    "GUNNER" MH
    "DASH" MH
    "TAZ" HRCH,RN,MH,MNH
    "Duffy" HRCH,UH, MH, HRC 500 points RIP
    "Kodi" SH, WCX- HRCH 6th Std Poodle
    "GINA" JH STD Poodle
    "Heather" HRCH, SH
    "CHIEF" JH,WCX,RN,SHR STD Poodle

  8. #18
    Senior Member DarrinGreene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Souf Joisy
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    If participants would just step up and help, pros would bring help if they knew they had a ton of dogs entered and clubs would stop arbitrarily limiting tests when they have more than enough available grounds, my guess would be (and it's only a guess) that a lot of these issues would go away.

    As with everything, give a human a tool to make their life easier and they will exploit it to it's fullest benefit.

    Let a club set a limit and rather than chase extra help/grounds, a lot of them will set a limit.

    These people are already stretched thin and can't be blamed for using a tool available to allow them to do what they love but not be over burdened by it. They are doing other people a favor after all.

    Eliminate the "lack of help" issue and you would eliminate a lot of the burden. That would leave grounds as the only real reason to limit the entries and it's pretty easy to tell at that point what clubs have that problem.

    At that point... maybe some participant who owns a farm somewhere might step up and volunteer some property to run on one weekend a year.

    If everyone stopped pointing fingers and did what they could, the problem would be minimized. That goes for pros, amateurs and committees alike.
    Darrin Greene

  9. #19
    Senior Member i_willie12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marshall MO
    Posts
    981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rookie View Post
    rule change that required every handler to work four hours. If they are not able to then the price of their entry should be higher to cover the cost of paid help. Average Master entry $80.00 if you work, $95.00 if you do not.
    Who is going to keep track of this??? Going to have to have more club members running around making sure that person A has their 4 hours in and person B doesnt try to only work 2 hours.. People complaining that they worked more than another person and wanting them to be charged more... See the issue there!
    "Some people pride themselves on how far they can shoot ducks, others pride themselves on how close they can get them. I'm an other!!! "
    John Stephens RNT

    HRCH Wilson's Grand Prairie Pintail
    http://wilsonsretrievers.com/

  10. #20
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarrinGreene View Post

    Eliminate the "lack of help" issue and you would eliminate a lot of the burden. That would leave grounds as the only real reason to limit the entries and it's pretty easy to tell at that point what clubs have that problem.
    At some point, every club faces the lack of grounds problem. Some just more than others. Fixing this problem is incredibly difficult.

    Everyone is whining about the clubs limiting entries. This came about as a necessary band aid but it does make things tough as you are essentially rationing spots. Since it is probably never going to happen to let clubs ration these slots efficiently through price, there are going to be additional band aids applied.

    The primary reason for the huge demand for MH entries is because of folks wanting to get in to the MN. Alas the MN isn't going to change--it has no need to until enough clubs are fed up they quit the MN club.

    One easy fix to increase capacity for MH slots is for AKC simply to remove the arbitrary requirements for splits. 60 dog limits come from the requirement to split. If the AKC removed that and let the clubs deal with it as they saw fit, it would greatly increase that availability of MH slots.

    For example, my club goes with a 60 dog limit because we do not have the grounds to split. We do however have incredibly good and efficient workers. We could easily do 90 dogs in two days, but we are not allowed to. I am sure other clubs are in a similar situation. The AKC's heart is in the right place--trying to ensure a quality test experience, but why not let those closest to it determine that on their own?

    Just by removing the requirement to split and let clubs set entries at whatever number they can handle would greatly increase the supply of MH slots. Instead of mandating a solution, let those closest to it work it out.

Posting Permissions

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