RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment

34K views 162 replies 76 participants last post by  counciloak 
#1 ·
Just received a copy of the proposed amendment to the MNRC Constitution and Bylaws which is concerned with ways to address the large number of entries at the Master National. I would like to hear the pros and cons concerning the proposed change from others who run hunt tests so that I can be better informed when discussing this with my club members. Thank you.

Current Article IX, Section 3 (a2) reads: All contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs. Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four Master tests by member clubs and have an MH title.

Proposed Article IX, Section 3 (a2): After earning a Master Hunter title, all contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs. Contestants who enter exclusively in Alaska must obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of four Master tests by member clubs after earning their MH title.
 
#3 ·
That's what the Master National's position is. They cite that there are huge logistic challenges to putting on a 700+ dog event. If the grounds are available, then there aren't enough hotels & restaurants and vice versa. Their letter also states that "the average age of the entered dogs has moved downward.....These youngsters typically go out in the 1st or 2nd series, as they are not yet mature or seasoned enough to handle big tests and the pressure of a 9 day event". I've never ran a Master National so I don't know if the argument holds true or not. I do believe that holding a 700+ dog event has its logistical challenges, but I'm just not sure this is the best way to address that problem.
 
#5 ·
the way i read it says that in order for a dog that is just starting his master's tests (and didnt run senior) in order to qualify for the master national in that year he will need to pass 12 tests in one year to qualify for the national. 6 to get his master and 6 to qualify. seems ridiculous. the other alternative would be for him to pass 6 masters then wait till after the master national and proceed to get 6 more master passes for 3 years in a row. in essence you will need 24 masters passes instead of 18. it will turn into a pro only endeavor. i agree there is alot of entries for the master national but this just seems like a money grab or an elitist mentality. what would once take (theoretically) 3 years to accomplish will now take 4 unless you hulk up and pass 12 your first year. more money will be made by the 6 extra master passes added (assuming you don't have a backlash and less people go ofter the MNH title) and the AKC will still say they lose money.

when is the vote and when will it go into affect if passed?
 
#7 ·
The votes are to be submitted by June 15th and the results will be posted to the Master National website by July 1st. If passed, the change would take effect starting August 1st, 2013, the start of the qualifying year for the 2014 event.
 
#8 ·
Whatever is done to reduce numbers will (correctly or incorrectly) get tagged as making the MN a pro endeavor.

I see the current proposal as a short term fix to a long term problem. But, maybe that's what is needed right now.

They could just do a straight 5 of 7 ( and no 8) and be done with it.



just my .02
 
#9 ·
They could just do a straight 5 of 7 ( and no 8) and be done with it.
Can you say, "Judge shopping?"
 
#10 ·
I don't think the founding fathers ever thought the numbers for the Master National would be this large the first in 1991 until this date. I have the RFTN 1991 and the front page shows the dogs who qualified at the first Master National. Limit the weekend numbers will help some, otherwise with a pass fail the numbers will grow. Obedience trials started to do placements on scores, 170 passing, 200 perfect score, offering different placements for the high scores. Don't think that would work can already hear the hue and cry breathing on my necks as I type. Pro game or not I still believe the average working guys with a decent dog can qualify for the Master National if they want it bad enough and their priorities are in order.
 
#17 · (Edited)
.....Obedience trials started to do placements on scores, 170 passing, 200 perfect score, offering different placements for the high scores......
This is what I would suggest.

Qualify by placement points, earned in MN club events.
They don't need to change the standard for passing or failing a Master test. And they don't need to put an extra burden on the dogs that just titled that year.

If the dog has the talent and training to place high enough to earn the points to qualify, it's a dog that deserves a shot at the Master National. If it can barely squeak through 6 tests a year, it's not.

Who cares how old the dog is, or what year it titled?
What matters, is that it demonstrates that it can consistently perform at a level well above the class average.
 
#11 ·
I think they tried the 6 out of 8 passes a couple of years ago and not too sure that worked. If a dog earns 6 master passes whether it has a title or not in the qualifying year haven't they met the standard enough? If one is going to say that a new master hunter hasn't proven him/herself as much as a dog that got its title last year, then raise the bar for all dogs. I do understand why the master national is having a conundrum, however, I'm not sure they should discriminate based on when the dog was titled. I believe that all things being equal, everyone and every dog should have an equal opportunity to qualify, if the handler so chooses to pursue getting qualified. AKC states that 6 passes equate to MH title, why not have 8 or some other number of passes for ALL dogs to qualify within the qualifying year?
 
#15 ·
raise the bar for all dogs.
Agree, for all dogs looking to go to the Master National.
To qualify for a MH tiltle a dog needs 6 passes with an average score of 7 this bar should remain. If the MNRC wants to reduce numbers and make this a real showcase of the best they should propose raising their bar by requiring 3 scores of 9 or above to qualify for the MN.
Raise the quality of performances not quantity.

Tim
 
#13 · (Edited)
I must be missing something. I don't see this as a solution to limiting the entries for the Master National. Would raising the passing score requirement make it tougher for dogs to pass and get their MH?
 
#16 ·
Some that are younger go out but what about those who have an older dog who just happen to qualify when they are older? This would require them to get 12 passes too. How many dogs would be "eliminated" by this new rule ? Would it help reduce the entries by the number they need? Perhaps it would make sense to either make a pass more difficult or consider having a an east and west master national and leave the rules the same?
 
#18 ·
...I would like to hear the pros and cons concerning the proposed change from others who run hunt tests so that I can be better informed when discussing this with my club members...
The pro? They're attempting to find a way to limit entry numbers and keep the event manageable. I agree that the success of the event is making it harder to manage, find grounds, logistics, etc. Finding a way to keep entries manageable isn't a bad thing I would really like to know how many of the 700+ dogs in last year's MN would not have qualified under this proposed rule. Exactly how much of an impact in numbers will this make?

The con? I think this will have the most impact on the amatuer. If you have a dog that's getting ready to title, and you want to run in the MN, you're going to have to run more tests (more time and more $$$) if you can't use the passes from your title run. While Pros, and some very involved Ams, run ten or twelve (or more) tests a year, how many does the average one or two dog Am run? And for those that don't travel far for the MN, waiting one more year may mean having to wait another four years for it to cycle back to your region. And while those in Alaska still would only need four passes, by not letting them use passes gained in a title run, may add a couple years, not just one.
I am also curious how this will be view by the Pros. I can't imagine that anything that negatively impacts the number of dogs they can qualify and bring will be view favorably (and we've already seen that they swing a big stick when it comes to influence when the amendment to require one pass for a MN qual be made by the owner was shot down before even coming up for an official vote).

I know that when I went to the MN in 2010, I used a couple passes from our title run to qualify. If suppose if I this requirement existed, I would have run more tests, but I wouldn't have liked it. When we ran, although we went out in the fourth series, he was certainly qualified to be there.

I know the MN Board is looking at any viable option to keep entries manageable, and I certainly don't think there's any "right answer" that's going to work for everyone. I'm curious to hear if there are more arguments in favor of this amendment other than, "we need to find something to do to limit entries...".
 
#22 ·
I have never been to the MN or the Grand. We have all heard about the 700 entries etc. By comparison how many entries does the Grand get each year? I know that the Grand has a Spring and Fall event. Would spliting the MN into two East/ West be feasible?
 
#23 ·
They are thinking of starting it the year that it is on the West coast. Where the entries are consistently the lowest!

So the 20-50 or so 'local' dogs will just be getting their MH this will not be able to enter and play.
People that could be potential volunteers for the event. Of course, I am thinking of people that run their own dogs, and are not handled by pros.

It's the MNH that is keeping SOME people from all over the country returning every year.

Isn't that a big reason that is why the entries have been huge the last 2 years?

Debbie
 
#24 ·
It's the MNH that is keeping SOME people from all over the country returning every year.

Isn't that a big reason that is why the entries have been huge the last 2 years?

Debbie
That, and the fact that they removed the 5 out of 7 requirement, and just made it 6 passes, no matter how many tests it takes you. If they would institute the old qualification requirement, the numbers would return back to a manageable number.
 
#25 ·
I know when they had the previous 5 of 7 rule, handlers picked judges, clubs got 'easier' judges and people scratched after they watched the test dog if they thought it too tough to even start. Clubs must have protested?!

The latter created issues for clubs to deal with - but let's not get into that on this thread please!

I hadn't run Master as yet, so I didn't hear the scuttlebutt!

Debbie
 
#28 ·
Maybe they should have to add a field trial ribbon to the standard?
 
#29 ·
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
 
#32 ·
Crazy ... why did they ever change it from what it was to begin with??? ... what was it? 5 out of 7 in a year or 6 consecutive?? My head hurts reading this stuff...Why don’t they just go back to that?
 
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