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.
 
#84 ·
LIke someone said earlier, there are mature dogs form the FT arena that would fall under the "must have an MH, plus 6 passes rule and have to get a max of 12 passes.

I like the owner/handler idea, but it's not realistic - the handlers that have pros run their dogs because they are not good handlers. And handlers who work and can't go to tests and have to keep a job in order to have a retirement income so they can be full time handlers once they retire!

Eric is correct about the extra work that Regional can bring to clubs.
The easiest way for Regionals to work is to take a club's normal HT weekend and CALL it a regional qualifier. One requirement for the club could be to have one judge at each stake be a past MN judge, with the IDEA that the judging should be tougher. But you know how varied that could play out around the country.

Or 2 clubs get together and hold a special 3 master stake if the AKC will go along with that idea (with the MN judges as well.

There's no way to have more than one MN. Too much to plan for and the Board and the MN trailer/equipment has to be there as well.

Debbie
 
#88 ·
A MH title is a MH title no matter the age. It's silly to start to decide by age/experience who should qualify by age.
There are Master Dogs at two three years old talented, trained, ready to compete at the National level. Conversely there are seven and eight year old dogs who needed 20 passes to get thier titles who will never be able to compete or even qualify at anything other then a weekend test. Some hunt tests have small numbers, few pros, easy tests or follow judges that have reps for passing everything. Don't have a solution for numbers outside of raising qualification scores
As are done in obedience trials and that won't fly, but, putting young MH dogs in the backseat shouldn't fly either.
 
#91 ·
Earl I'm kinda with you.I don't know whysomething like the obedience model wouldn't work.maybe not necessarily place the dogs just identify the ones that did excellent limit it to the top ten percent of the starters. Then to qualify for the master national you have to get say 5 excellents within the calendar year from three different judgess or something like that
 
#90 ·
It is more economical to send your dog with a pro. Most amat can't take off that long a period while the pros can go down way ahead of time and start training. Most pros pool together rent a house and already have training areas. Amat shows up and he is attending a meeting on how to work wingers etc.
 
#94 ·
I'm just now starting running at the Master level. I know many dogs around the age of two that can compete with any dog I've seen. (I wish I were one of them as we are still training). I see the 12 MH passes as a money deal for the AKC to try to thin out participants. I would hope AKC would try to make a standard a standard and keep it a standard, instead of morphing the rules to limit participation. That said, my point would be that I would hope the standard of a few years back when a dog got a MN pass, that I would be held to the same standard when and if I chose to participate in a MN event in the future. The changes of rules last Dec 1st, and now possibly a new entry standard seems to create a division from the dog a year or two ago, to the new standards being proposed today. Just adding my two worthless pennies.
 
#95 ·
I see the 12 MH passes as a money deal for the AKC to try to thin out participants. I would hope AKC would try to make a standard a standard and keep it a standard, instead of morphing the rules to limit participation.
Just to be clear, the proposal is from the MNRC, not the AKC. MNRC is responsible for the MN and AKC is responsible for the weekend tests. While the AKC isn't ever going to turn down more money--if in fact this would bring it some--it has nothing to do with this particular proposal.
 
#96 ·
I don't have a dog in this fight. But, I would appreciate some clarification from those who do. As I understand it, the proposed Amendment requires 6 passes after a dog obtains its MH. Why is everyone referring to 12 MH passes.

Thanks in advance for the clarification
 
#97 · (Edited)
The 12 passes would only be for a new MH. Previously, the 5 or 6 passes earned before the dog got its MH title, counted for MN qualification purposes. They no longer count, only passes after the title is earned. So a young dog that earned its MH during the MN qualifying year, would need 6 additional passes that year to qualify for the MN.
 
#98 ·
The more folks I talk with seem to have less interest in the MN than before. Mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general. I can count 5 folks I know and train with occasionally who used to have their main goal be getting to the MN.

I don't think the plate seems as shiny as it used to be.
 
#105 ·
The more folks I talk with seem to have less interest in the MN than before. Mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general.
Paul,

Please explain your saying "mainly due to the politics of the event and club in general". What "politics of the event" are in play ? I think of politics (in field trials) as being crooked judges who award their pros and/ or their friends. Or the reverse ... judges who have some grudge against an owner or handler and withhold a win or placement from people they don't like.

Are you inferring that MNRC officers and/or Board members get passes for the dogs they run ?

You also said "due to the politics of the club in general". I am probably naive, but I don't see how the MNRC club can be political. It is comprised of member clubs from all over the country. I don't see any collective cohesion among the member clubs which would make the "club" political.

So are you referring to the officers and Board members of the MNRC as being the political body?

Like Ted, I don't have a dog in this fight. I am just curious. I don't see how this amendment proposed by the MNRC Officers and Board members is going to solve their high entry situation that has become a management problem.

Helen
 
#100 ·
Great will solve the volumn problem. Lots of suggestions that require someone else to do the work. I have talked to several on the MN committee. Here's a suggestion that will pucker some. Move to a permanent site ie Demopolos. They thave the grounds, and the workers, and the experience. And the town would welcome the MN with open arms.
 
#103 ·
That's the way the oldest and most prestigous dog event in the United States works.... The Championships at Ames Plantation.
 
#101 · (Edited)
Any Handler (Pro-Amateur) can Run 5-8 dogs period, it makes those that run in mass, have to pick the best dogs to be that 5-8, any trip divided btw 5-8 owners is completely doable, heck an Amateur does it with no clients for 1-2 dogs. This eliminates the 20-30 dogs handlers, who are often times to busy to help at a stake. Easy quick, less dogs, the Amateur is not affected, there's still a place for the Pro, and for those who want to run more dogs, it brings in other handlers, who can help at the event, air-run dogs on the same truck, and no-one (contestants, judges, setup workers) is waiting for any single handler (pre-line prep. honor situation, retrieving-airing dogs, etc.).

Don't hold back my 2-3 year old MH pocket rocket, she has just as much chance as any, and probably a lot more than some. I run my own dogs & take care of all my own expenses. I don't pony up an entry fee-travel, for a dog without a pretty good shot. ;)
 
#106 ·
This is really the only good fix for the number of dogs. Everyone is happy, all can play just cannot play with so many dogs. Pro can pick their best for that year and run them. It works for the Grand. Until this year, handlers were limited to 8 dogs, not change to 12. They should have left it at 8 in my opinion.
 
#107 ·
Tom-

The inmates that worked on the cattle ranch when it was a cattle ranch and catfish farm have been moved. This was about 100 or so. They've been replaced by maybe 40-50 inmates who are housed there as a work-release center plus about 6-8 folks who work on the cattle ranch keeping it up for the dog events.
when we had 100 inmates, it was never hard finding 30-40 to work a double test. Now that the population has been severely reduced, there can be some problems. I worked a Junior there 2 wks ago and all we could get was 3 workers. In the past, a Jr test would have twice that number.

The idea of having an event equal to the MN there every year is frightening because it would mean 1 or 2 w/e tests by the local clubs would have to be given up every year. The idea of giving away w/e tests to hold the MN is really sort of an anathema. It runs counter to why people participate in the clubs.
 
#110 ·
Here's a revolutionary idea, let's make the weekend HT a true test of a finished gun dog.

1. In at least one triple marking series, a blind retrieve shall be made before the marks are picked up but after all three marks have fallen. The blind shall be longer than any of the three marks and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple.

2. At least one marking series shall have the working dog positioned at least 10 feet from the handler.

3. At least one series will require the dog to work from a boat, field blind or other station commonly used in hunting situations.

I'm sure there are other suggestions to increase the realism and difficulty of the weekend test.

Only true finished dogs could earn a mh then and mnh would become a real honor.
 
#111 ·
Here's an example of what is driving the problem: This is from a local hunt test and one MH stake out of two. The other had very similar statistics.

Master A: 42 dogs entered.

22 dogs who are professionally trained by very well respected trainers who travel to warmer climates failed. Of the 20 who passed, I know 14 were also professionally trained. 3 I don't know their affliations or training background. Few were Am handled.

Is this what needs to happen to edit the number of dogs qualifying for the Master National? Is this healthy for the sport? Personally, I feel my odds of winning a field trial ribbon are better than passing a "standard".
 
#118 · (Edited)
"and between the falls to simulate a lively cripple." Only way to do that is have a live duck running around. Then how would the handler put the dog on it since my experience in the field has me usually not knowing where the crip went after I have shot the triple.

Like the ideas however unrealistic it seems on first read. I will think on it a bit.

I like #2 but #3 has the "field blind" layout? in play and we know how that is perceived by some.

Hunting situation? How many handlers hunt? Of the 15 or 20 handlers I am around the most there are 3 of us that hunt at all.

Maybe the way to limit the MNHT numbers is to open it only to owners who have three years straight of hunting licenses in their possession. To include those owners who put their dogs on a pro truck for the duration.
 
#126 · (Edited)
You don't need a live duck running around, just a 150 yard blind through three <100 yard retrieves.

If putting your hunting dog in a "field blind" is an issue you need to train more.

I'm reading Paul talking about people being penciled out after completing the work, where out this way it seems the complaints I hear are about unrealistic tests and ****ty dog work getting by...

Don't know. I like a straightforward test, especially if I have to judge it, but this is what I have been hearing from participants.
 
#119 ·
Greetings: All of these posts are good. However, the regionals, split Pro/Am, preliminary, raise scores, raise number of qualifications etc have been proposed in the past. And in the past all were voted on at the MN annual meetings. Many many clubs had pros serve as their delegates. The pros will not vote for something that will deminish their pay check. Not anti pro but the sport will never be a true "amateur" sport until all the delegates are amateurs with amateur interests.
 
#121 ·
Greetings: All of these posts are good. However, the regionals, split Pro/Am, preliminary, raise scores, raise number of qualifications etc have been proposed in the past. And in the past all were voted on at the MN annual meetings. Many many clubs had pros serve as their delegates. The pros will not vote for something that will deminish their pay check. Not anti pro but the sport will never be a true "amateur" sport until all the delegates are amateurs with amateur interests.
I love my Pro's, I love the work they all do, I love the fact they help people make the most of their animals. The problem at any and every event is this and it hurts folks to say it or admit it. When a truck with 15 dogs shows up at a test, a volunteer run, non-profit event they only bring themselves to run their dogs. When 15 dogs show up, one in each car, in a single crate, 15 volunteers usually open the car door.(well, maybe 5 out of 15 :) )

I see all pro's try to help out when they have time but, lets face it, they don't and shouldn't. They are being paid to focus on running the dog at the end of the lead. Not shoot fliers, marshall, re-bird, run a winger, deliver lunches, move stakes, pack trailers and/or cook judges dinners.

Unless the sport somehow forces the owners into participating, the growth will cause rapid fee increases to cover hiring all paid workers and this will turn into a "for profit" adventure to keep the sport alive.
 
#127 · (Edited)
I have a dog that ran 3 MNHTs and passed one of those. I also own another MH dog, but I plan to run him in the FT game instead. Over the ten years I have played the game, the dogs have gotten to be very good and the training has advanced as well. The pedigrees of most dogs running are looking more and more like the roster in the FT game. I know something must be done to reduce the ridiculously high numbers in the MNHT, but as time progresses I am afraid we will still have to go back again over this issue repeatedly. Certainly, the high entry numbers are a deterrent to me from vying for another return to the MNHT.

PS As a suggestion to put out there for discussion: How about requiring a MNHT participant be also QAA. I have heard it argued that any MH dog could be competitive in a qualy.
 
#129 ·
How many of you that are having heart burn with the Master National actually participate. Seems to me "lets change because it's successful" is a game people play . Whats is wrong with large entries??? Last year was a great event. The MN is a seperate organization so play the game if you want or stay with the weekend HT and have FUN.
 
#131 ·
Hudson Highland Hunting Retriever Association , at the spring meeting today , held in conjunction with our ICE BREAKER event , voted NO on the proposed by laws change.
I did not bring this up during the discussion , but one thing I thought of , that I did not see in this thread (didn't read all comments) , is IMO ,we should wait until we see how the rule change limiting entries on the weekends plays out before instituting more change . Went 14 for 14 on shooting flyer pigeons today regards ...
 
#132 ·
Kudos on the pigeon flyers Mr. Kelder.

Kudos for Club Vote "NO", and I agree with your thinking here, gee willies, can we have some time to collect and analyze data on limited entries before we split the baby AGAIN!
 
#134 ·
Hmmm, Lets review: AKC agrees to Limit Master HT entries to 60 (to Help Clubs because of grounds/workers/blah blah), Revenue down. Next thing you know, Master National is pitching the argument of "we need to lower entries for the same reasons", BUT......The SOLUTION IS *RUN SIX MORE MASTER TESTS after you TITLE*(REVENUE UP FOR AKC), but pitch the selling point of young dogs not being able to Handle a MN to make the entries more manageable?

That's an orgy of strange bed fellows I want a Fly's eye view of.
 
#137 ·
This thread has a lot of debate on solutions to a real or percieved problem of too many MN entries. The truth is there is only one rule proposal on the docket. I have contacted the officers of my clubs and expressed my opinion. I want my clubs to vote NO on the proposed amendment. Regardless of your opinion, I urge all to make their views known to your club.
 
#141 ·
Maybe the folks who've run it, got the MN Title are satisfied now and will drop out and pursue other venues? Always a possibility that after a few years you'll see a big drop in entries. Happens at HT's. Sort of a cycle. One year a big pile of JH dogs, year or two later a big jump in MH dogs then, all the bottom drops out for a year or two.
 
#145 ·
An Amateur, is limited far more by a week long event, than they will ever be by the number of dogs being run by Pro Handlers.
I agree. If the point is to limit the number of dogs in the MN, limiting the number of dogs a pro can run will probably do that. It will not increase the number of amateurs running--it will only make it more expensive for the clients of the pros since the expenses will be spread over fewer dogs.
 
#146 ·
Wasn't it in 2010 that the MN decided to offer the MNH? That seems to be a big incentive to get people from all over the country to make the trip more often. The people with time and money to do so - or have a pro run the dog (still money).

When I think of it this way, I begin to lose some respect of the MN Board to not have the foresight to see that this will raise the entry numbers! And gee, that might become a 'problem'?

Debbie
 
#157 ·
Doesn't that just limit it to Retired and rich amateurs. I have a dog that has passed the last Master Nationals and this year I will be gong for my third however I have had a pro run him each time. I run him in almost all of his weekend tests and in Qs as well. However it takes 2 weeks to do a Master National at least. I am in my 30's and have 2 young kids and only 3 weeks vacation. I am in NC and no way could I do Kansas or CA. From a time or a money perspective figuring it would cost 1000-1500 to do these and a Pro is only a few hundred. If you limited it The Pros around here might not even do it. So if this rule was already in effect I would have to wait 3 years to run my dog to even attempt for a 3 pass.

If that is the cases because I already have two passes I will keep trying for the 3 and a MNH title but this would be my last. Going forward I would just focus on FTs because the Master National Game would be too much trouble.
 
#148 ·
Exactly.

If they wanted to put the title one it, perhaps if a dog passed once, the title would have been granted. And that could have ended the incentive for many to return year after year.

But, no it takes 3 passes and the you get a new title for each pass after that. So there is always a carrot held out there to go back. Thus the numbers will always increase.
 
#149 ·
I agree totally with your remark. A dog that passes such a hard test should get the title MNH the first pass and that would relieve a lot of preasure on having to keep going and going. If you do want to keep going then get the numerical designation.It might go like this;MNH,MNH2,MNH3, MNH HOF. No need to get a MNH8
 
#151 ·
It always amazes me that any time MN is mentioned the same RTF MN haters start all their BS and the FT'rs jump in without a clue. If you think people run the MN just for a plate or a title you don't have a clue. If you think there are clubs and MN volunteers out there willing to host qualifiers every year or multiple MNHT's, you don't have a clue. No, I don't have the solution but I do understand the problems.

It might be just like college football...as popularity grew the stadiums had to get bigger.
 
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