Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment - Page 8
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 163

Thread: Master National Retriever Club Proposed Amendment

  1. #71
    Senior Member cpmm665's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Clifton Park, NY


    I am opposed to this proposal.

    I fail to see how this move will create more manageable numbers for the MN. It will most definitely increase revenue for AKC.

    My personal bottom line is I want to go to the MN. I train and test in order to qualify to attend. Since I live in NY, I am less interested in traveling to California but if that was my shot I'd still go for it.

    I would rather see the MN explore regional tests or regional qualifying tests. I agree there is some merit to a 2-3 year old Master Hunter not having the maturity to handle the National, I just don't agree with this attitude as justification for the By-Law change.
    Cindy Von Sutphen

    Dai Suki Desu MH
    Reed Lanes Ladies Love a Rockstar CGC
    LPK's If I Can Call You Betty (da behbeh gurl)

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #72
    Senior Member lbbuckler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Madison, MD


    Clubs that are members of the master national vote
    FC AFC Black Magic's Return to Lender "Repo"
    FC AFC Cropper's Get Sum "Getty"
    Cropper's Diamond Cutter QAA "Swayze"
    Captain Chaos "Cappy"

  4. #73
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    N. Cackalacky


    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt'EmUp View Post
    The problem with this is the MH test is not STANDARD across geography, wrong or right different areas have different levels of test, you only have to look at the MNH pass rate in the different divisions to see disparity that's with only a single test. Now look at the pass rate of particular areas in regard to just the MH level tests, there's a reason pros travel . Setting it up as 4 different National tests, region 1 might be significantly harder to pass the test or get that important MNH title, than region 4. You could not guarantee the same MNH level of test in different areas. Could we even guarantee the same # of series, historically series Number have been going down, it's not even 2 complete MH tests now. What about the same # of marks/blinds? Would we now be National shopping? for a pro with 30 dogs to run (it would be stupid not to)
    I don't know any pros that travel out of their regions to find easier MH tests. Some will travel if the season is ended in their area and they need MH passes for the MN or take a trip or two for giggles.

    If you had multiple tests, how would one know which was easier in advance? It would be easy to make the dogs from one region run that test, although that would take away from the enjoyment of the MN for some folks who like to run because they see very different grounds from their own.

    Hunt tests are against a standard. Every weekend some are easier than others--even within the same tests, different flights end up being easier or harder but a pass is a pass is a pass.

    At the end of the day, if you want to play dog games at a 'national' level, you had better have a lot of time or a lot of money and it is best to have both. So, I don't worry about it much one way or another. It seems that this proposal would reduce some of the numbers at the MN, but isn't going to have a huge impact beyond the folks who are just qualifying to run the one in their area. It is sad to see that but I don't think it would make a big difference.

    My concern is what impact, if any, it would have on the local weekend tests, particularly my own clubs. That is far less clear to me. It seems it would reduce the surge we saw at weekend tests when the MN was in our area a little bit, but not a ton as lots of MH dogs only run the MN when it is close as well. Other than that, I could see it increasing entries slightly or reducing them on the margin. Hard to say. If pressed, I would probably vote against it since I don't see much impact to the weekend tests and I don't particularly care if the MN has huge entries. I'd rather see folks get the chance to run a young MH when they could than not.

  5. Remove Advertisements

  6. #74


    This is defined as a capacity problem, so needs a capacity solution. Not higher standards (scores or # passes), not judges choosing a winner each week. Having multiple National tests at multiple locations increases the capacity, eases travel and cost burdens, increases participant capacity. When the grocery store lines get long, they open more check-out lines. They don't send home the customers who aren't spending more than $X or have fewer than #Y items. Capacity...

  7. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Wetumpka, AL


    I read this thread, along with all the others on the subject, with only an audience's interest. I just don't worry about the MN.

    Having said that, I would offer a couple of observations.

    First of all, I don't envision the AKC changing anything that will impact the qualification to enter the MN. They aren't going to change the scoring of w/e tests to provide a winner, top three, or a ranking so that a % can be selected from each test. I just don't see them doing anything like this for any number of reasons not the least of which is simply that the qualification procedure just shouldn't have any impact on their testing program.

    Second, the ideas of a "regional qualifier" fail to recognize the impact on local clubs and personnel. Is this qualifier going to be run under the same MN rules? This will require two tests or 6 series running a week. For all of those who've advocated regional qualifiers, are you going to work for a week or more? Further, if your dog qualifies at the regional, then it's off to the MN. So now, you'll have two weeks each year not just one. If the regional qualifier isn't going to use the same rules as the MN, how would it differ from a simple w/e test?

    All of this is to say that there has not been a universally acceptable idea brought forward yet. In short, for every idea there are both pro's and con's and the con's for each seem really significant if not insurmountable.

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  8. #76
    Senior Member PalouseDogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Pullman, WA


    No opinion on MN requirements, but the observation that they have so many entrants because there's no other hunt title beyond MH. If AKC offered another goal (other than field trials), it would provide an outlet other than MN.

    Either provide placements for MH and allow dogs to accumulate points for an MH championship, as in obedience, or break out of the 3-tiered title mold and introduce another hunt test level beyond MH. Advantage of the first option is that judges already have score sheets.
    Kelly Cassidy (person)

    Pinyon Cassidy, pest-in-chief (golden retriever puppy, DOB 3/28/2016)
    HR Maple Cassidy UDX JH RE (golden retriever, DOB 6/24/2009)
    Alder Cassidy CDX PCDX RAE2 (standard poodle, DOB 6/23/2006)

  9. #77
    Senior Member roseberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    North Alabama


    if anything i find slightly confusing gives the average person a tension headache.
    then because i find this discussion very confusing, i feel sorry for those of you with average intelligence!

    i am pleased that i do not serve in a capacity that would require me to propose solutions to problems in events where the very opinionated and all knowing "dog people" are participants. that said, i hope a solution is ultimately found that makes everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!
    john mccallie

  10. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Boston, GA


    While some might show up for the MN a day or two in advance, many spend a week prior pre MN training. The same might happen at regional qualifiers. More land, more help, more judges. Will MN staff need to be on hand? All of this equates to time and money for everyone.
    Remember, this is MN's problem to fix, not AKC's. I doubt seriously if AKC is going to change their weekend grading system to accomodate MN's capacity problem.
    Also agree this proposal might mean more tests would need to be run by those affected dogs. That, combined with clubs ability to limit entries, might make those passes tougher to get.
    Tom Dorroh
    Boston, GA

  11. #79
    Senior Member helencalif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    in the mountains at Lake Almanor, CA


    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Nutt View Post
    How is the proposal either approved or disapproved? Who votes?
    Clubs who are member clubs of the MNRC vote. Several wrinkles for voting ... clubs who meet only once a year or once in a quarter may not have a general meeting prior to the MNRC's June 15 deadline for the vote on this revised amendment.

    I belong to 3 clubs in No. California who will not be having a general meeting prior to the June 15 deadline.

  12. #80
    Senior Member Karen Klotthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Slidell , LA


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



    Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
    ++++++1000, that would do it. This is suppose to be a game for lthe amatures. I do not mind the pros and sometime the clubs need their entries, but when it comes to running the Grand or MN it should be owner / handler. Also a limit on how many one owner can handle

Posting Permissions

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