The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 163

Thread: Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Just press the EASY button.

    MNRC=Owner/Handler

    Done

    Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
    Bubba
    and here I thought I was the only one who could tick off all the cool kids...lol..

  2. #52
    Senior Member Codatango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doublehaul View Post
    that may be true, but it only would apply to dogs that do not yet have their mh. It seem to me that it might reduce the surge of entries in clubs that are located near where the mn is being held in a particular year. The folks that say "hey, i can run the mn without traveling across the country this year, so i will get my 6 passes and give it a shot" will be reduced because a number of them will require 12 passes and decide that it isn't worth it.
    that would be me!

  3. #53
    Senior Member Codatango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishduck View Post
    The person this proposal hurts the most is the owner/handler that decides to run the Master National when it is close. This guy now has to run an extra 6 tests. Not a big deal for those that write checks and don't handle dogs. For the average owner handler 12 weekends away from home is going to cause serious tension at the home front. Even with half of those passes coming from a double master, it is still 9 weekends.

    In my area the owner/handlers are the test chairs, hunt committee, flyer shooters and the marshalls. These people need to be encouraged to become more active in the sport. Don't put another roadblock in the way of their participation.
    I agree with this, as I am this situation AGAIN for 2014 with a young dog (and only dog).

    Don't forget the 12 passes ASSUMES the dog qualifies at all of them. You gotta figure in a fail or 2. We are not only speaking of young dogs or 'new to master' game' (ie. from field trials), but any seasoned dog with mulitiple master passes can fail on any given day.

    And there still is the issue of the greenness of the handler or handler error (or lack of experience) at any given test.
    You know, that one whistle that was just a tad late and you lost your dog.

    Debbie

  4. #54
    Senior Member Codatango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Shafer View Post
    the only TRUE way to bring these numbers down to a manageable amount is for each region to hold a pre-national qualifier event over a 3 day weekend....IMO.... this would benefit everyone....here you can ween out most of the dogs that just Squeaked through the qualifing system....then the MN event would TRULY be a test of the very best and most deserving dogs...... just my .02
    This makes too much sense - so the MN won't even consider it (ok, being nasty here!)

    Agility does this at some of the various organizations and it works. But the AKC won't consider the MH, MH1, MH2 (or MHX) which works for obedience and agility, so why would the MN BOARD be different from any other stogy governing body in Field events?

    Debbie

  5. #55
    Senior Member Doug Main's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Galesburg, IL
    Posts
    839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Just press the EASY button.

    MNRC=Owner/Handler

    Done

    Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
    Bubba

    Didn't the MN try to pass that a few years ago?

  6. #56
    Senior Member Ron in Portland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Main View Post
    Didn't the MN try to pass that a few years ago?
    They tried to pass an amendment that said in one of the qualifying passes for the MN, the owner had to be the handler. The issue was scrubbed before making it to a vote.
    Ron
    www.portlandlabrador.com
    A Lab has no appreciation for the artistic value of a bonsai tree, but does appreciate their potential as chew toys.

  7. #57
    Senior Member RockyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Grove City, MN
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Just press the EASY button.

    MNRC=Owner/Handler

    Done

    Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
    Bubba
    Where's the "Like" button???

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockyDog View Post
    Where's the "Like" button???
    Careful, You'll have some MN official person telling you that no judge will pass you if you keep making comments like that on the internet. The little whiney master-mafia will conspire to sharpen their pencils against your dog.

  9. #59
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    I like the regional idea somewhat. If you had a regional qualifier, say a 3 or 4 day test, I might run that even though I would be unlikely ever to go to the MN even if qualified. The problem with the regional qualifier is that it adds more to the time and expense of that pewter plate with the qualifier and then the whole MN grind. Would probably limit the MN to the pros and retired.

    Why not split the thing into several MNs? Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field. Plus, that would allow for more fact finding junkets for the MNRC powers that be, so they would be all over that

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleHaul View Post
    Have four smaller ones around the country? It is just a hunt, test after all, so it isn't like some folks would have an advantage by running against a weaker field.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8

Posting Permissions

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