Cherokee Foothills HRC Spring Hunt Test Cancelled

[chuck187]

I am sorry I opened this can of worms, but there have been some great points made.

I went to the NGHRC last year, and had a great time even though my I did not pass either flight. You could really tell the club had worked hard to put the test on, and you could feel that at the test. I was excited about the Cherokee Foothills event, and it was unfortunate that it was cancelled.

I think it would be interesting to see Cherokee Foothills HRC, and North Georgia HRC team up and have a hunt test. It would be an opportunity to do a little strategic planning, and try a couple of different ideas.

First off, make sure the hunt test date does not land on any other major hunt test dates.

Then, possible set a hard close date and set the numbers. If the numbers are low, and the workforce can handle it, allow a limited number of walk ups.

Any other ideas?

[Mike Perry]

Then, possible set a hard close date and set the numbers. If the numbers are low, and the workforce can handle it, allow a limited number of walk ups.

Any other ideas?

You cannot have a hard close date and then allow walk ups. Makes no sense. Even limited # of walk ups still encourages people to not bear the responsibility or accountability of planning 10 days ahead.
Watch the movie "The Sting". After Lonigan gets shut out because he does not get his bet down in time, he can't wait for the next time and is sure to be there on schedule. Would be the same in HT's.
Let a pro get shut out because he can't manage his entries and see how pissed his clients get and then he is on time from then on. If he decides he does not like that club because they try to operate efficiently, then who wants him any way. Let a guy plan on running a test and not enter properly, lose vacation time, travel expense etc. and he will be on time next event also. If he gets pissed, then so be it.
This works for all other venues and no reason it cannot or will not for HRC.
Come on people. Is it really that hard to let a club know you are coming so they can operate efficiently?
Guess that tells you where I stand.
MP

[chuck187]

OK, well maybe that was a bad idea, and you brought up a very valid point. Maybe the hard close date is the way to go like AKC.

Do clubs have the option of a close date for registration, or is that a UKC rule that allow walkups?

[Jeff Huntington]

As long as HRC operates without callbacks and that the land/water series must be completed the same day, the number of dogs per set of judges is limited.

Imagine trying to run 50 dogs in both series in one day. Yes Grand sometimes does it, but they are extremely efficient.

It is also up to the clubs to be proactive in soliciting entries. Contact local pros and let them know about the dates before hand. Take some efforts to market your HT.

[red devil]

Chuck:

It is my understanding that any club could institute a hard close should they choose, but would probably be advised against it by the field rep.

As to the other arguments: The HRC's primary mission is to help hunters train better dogs. While pros benefit our clubs financially and fundamentally affect how are dogs are trained and tested at the upper levels, our organization is not set up to benefit them or their clients.

I'll judge for the umpteenth time this w/e. One common factor in my observations all successful clubs have is a strong recruitment of new handlers; handlers excited about running their first seasoned or started test. Those clubs consistently have large seasoned and started entries while maintaining a waiting list on their finished flights. They choose their judges very carefully and set an atmosphere more appropriate to hunting as opposed to serious dog training. Small details can make the difference - nice birds, good organization, adequate parking with good turnaround to name a few examples. Long time HRCers reaching out to their friends at other tests doesn't hurt, nor does shameless self promotion!!

I helped start an HRC club 12 years ago. From the start I was told by those who had run successful tests, the object of a test is not to make money as a club,but to provide the venue and hopefully break even. Clubs followong this philosophy seem to make money, while those that cut cornets and pinch pennies seem to lose out.

HRCs success has been predicated on the different atmosphere we provide. If HRC tries to compete with the AKC program by trying to be comparable, it will lose. Providing an amatuer friendly venue even if only in perception is one of the major differences.

[Kyle Bertram]

I feel compelled to weigh in here.

A couple thoughts on this subject. I am extremely involved in running a AKC club. So my views may be skewed in that direction.

A defined hard closing date is necessary for a club's financial health. People need to commit for the clubs sake. It forces people to make that financial decision and not wait and decide that if nothing more exciting is happening in their lives on Sat or Sun morning they decide, I might as well go run my dog!

The Idea of leaving entries open regardless of the number of entries until said defined date is just as bad of an idea as day of walk-up entries. What happens when entries overcome the clubs ability to secure grounds? We need to be able to limit a overall event size. Smaller clubs are going to have to cancel because of the large entries- opposite of the current problem. The answer to this is entries are open for a limited time, a defined limited number of entries would be reserved for club members. Club members get first shot at entering. This would certainly change how many club members and working club members you have. You would have to live within a certain radius of the club to be a member. There would have to be lots of thought put into this to make it fair for all involved, but the entire sport needs more working club members( at least some venues need more club workers). And in the future we are going to find ourselves running on smaller grounds more and more. So controlling the overall dog numbers is going to be critical!


IMHO pro trainers are necessary. You should not limit their entries unless it conflicts with the overall number the club can run. Pros should have a direct interest in a club's health. Their livelihood is dependent on a thriving retriever community. So I say you don't do anything to discourage a pro's ability to enter as many dogs as they want or can!

There is no perfect system out there. But I think changes are necessary.

[JoeOverby]

You cannot disallow walkups the day of a test. It is against the rules. Therefore, there is no such thing as a hard close. You don't have to increase the number of dogs per flight...just the number of flights. We do shamelessly promote our HT and are told quite regularly "we are running AKC that weekend, sorry, client sent the money in weeks ago...." Just like in the case of Cherokee Foothills...people are choosing to run a double master that weekend. Had we required the money to be in weeks ago people would have made their choices then and this whole conversation would be history. As far as the NGHRC/Cherokee Foothills joint venture...great idea but all of the help on the planet wouldn't have mattered. Cherokee Foothills is feeling what we felt last year. This is the whole reason we went to 1 HT a year from 2. Now, like I said before, there are less opportunities for "average Joe" to run in our region because of our decision to only have 1 a year and with Cherokee having been a 1 a year test now having none. Now, participants in our region will have to incur more travel expense going outside our region for the passes they could have been eligible for @ CFHRC. How does a hard close make it not amateur friendly??? Pros are the ones who suffer. We dont have to worry about our personal dogs getting registered...we have to worry if all of our clients have registered. The hard close does not make it unfair for the amateur it makes "average Joe" be responsible and accountable. Whats so wrong with that?? Listen guys/gals we can argue these points all day and get no where. The fact of the matter is just this..we are not seeing our sport grow down here, we are seeing a decline. Sitting on the club side of the fence it is easy to see what needs changin to up our numbers when other entities are already doing it and being very successful. I didn't help start a club to make the first dime but I didnt start one to be personally financially liable if we dont have the entries to pay the bird techs, duck man, poppers, and food. Shame on everyone who thinks the clubs dont do all they can to ensure their success. I dont know about every region but I do know down here in region 4 we take our HTs very seriously. We dont want a good test, we want a great one. We dont want good food, we want great food. etc. I imagine though, that we are no different than any other club. We all want the best for our sport. So, lets put our big boy/girl britches on and claim some responsibility when it comes to the success/failure of the club(s). Keep in mind, if people signed up early then there would be no need for any type of incentive to make them do so. Just sayin...