The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 163

Thread: Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment

  1. #11
    Senior Member lbbuckler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, MD
    Posts
    413

    Default

    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?
    AFC Black Magic's Return to Lender "Repo"
    Candlewoods Fox-C Mel, MH QAA "Mel"

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Boston, GA
    Posts
    2,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard N View Post
    Can you say, "Judge shopping?"
    People do it now. Some for good reason.
    Tom Dorroh

  3. #13
    Senior Member helencalif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    in the mountains at Lake Almanor, CA
    Posts
    2,006

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by helencalif; 04-17-2013 at 07:33 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Boston, GA
    Posts
    2,611

    Default

    It was 5 of 7 or a total of 8.

    Someone on here did the stats of the dogs who passed the MN. As I recall 70% of the dogs that got 5 of 7 to qualify passed and maybe only 30% of the dogs that got the 8 to qualify.
    Tom Dorroh

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    owings mills, md
    Posts
    1,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbbuckler View Post
    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
    You order a Lab; ask a Golden; but negotiate with a Chesapeake!

  6. #16

    Default

    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?

  7. #17
    Senior Member copterdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NW IL
    Posts
    2,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Criquetpas View Post
    .....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.
    Last edited by copterdoc; 04-17-2013 at 09:12 PM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Ron in Portland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbbuckler View Post
    ...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...".
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Ron in Portland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by copterdoc View Post
    Qualify by placement points, earned in MN club events...

    ...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..
    While good in theory, I don't think this is practical. It's hard enough now to find judges, in a pass fail scenario. How difficult and contentious will it be when you open up the score sheets for all to view? What's the performance difference between an 8 and a 9? If you ask that question on this forum, you'll get twenty pages of heated rhetoric, and still not have an answer.

    Again, I don't know what the answer is either...
    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.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Carrion View Post
    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
    I have heard more than one judge state they never give a 10. Had 1 judge who I trained with a few years ago tell me the highest you could get from him on the go bird was a 7. Did not matter how clean the mark was, 7 is all you get. Asking for 9's to qualify is asking for perfection.
    I once front footed 3 marks, and lined the double blinds. Saw the judge sheet inadvertently because I was the marshal and I had 7's and 8's. Go figure.
    Sorry for the hijack. I do not have an answer for the high entries.
    MP
    The pain of regret is much worse than the pain of hard work.

Posting Permissions

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