[Jennifer Henion]

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

This is already true of the current system. Anyone who isn't local to that year's MN has to be giving up tons of travel money and at least 10 - 12 days of work/time. If there were regionals first, then a National, the National would have far fewer entries than now and take far less time, I would think. Making it easier for people to go to the national. Especially if the National moved liked it does now.

But I really haven't had enough coffee yet.

 

[Hunt'EmUp]

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.

This new rule just hurts the younger pro dogs, and the Amateur handler. The Pros it might stop a single dog from going for one year, or make the dog run additional tests after a title is awarded. A very committed Amateur it might knock them out for one year. However the most negative would be felt by the weekend Amateur who doesn't run many tests only has one dog that they might take, once in a life-time. These are the people we want to go and run the MNH. I don't see this knocking the repeat every year MNH title!!! type of handler/pro out, and it just seems like it's catering to the Pros, something we don't need. STUPID RULE a NO VOTE.

To decrease Numbers easiest would be a limit on the # of dogs any handler can run, that and/or regional qualification, at a higher MNH Standard. Oh wait I'm reading this out of the HRC Grand rule book, please disregard

As an amateur I could get behind running a regional, while I don't want to really travel for a National every year, and I don't want to run with 700-1000 dogs. I just might be tempted to run a higher standard regional year after year, could be fun, especially if it could limit the # of tests I need to run the next year to qualify for it. Only please limit the # of dogs any one person can run, throwing for 20-30 of the same guys dogs, is boring for the workers, even if the handler is good looking :?

 

[Willie Alderson]

I like DoubleHaul's idea! "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"

I think it would work. Have a MN in each time zone, and rotate locations in each specific time zone. Dog still has to qualify, and I think it would get more people to run dogs, therefore generating more money. Isn't that what the AKC is all about...$$$$?

 

[helencalif]

Isn't that what the AKC is all about...$$$$?

As far as I know, AKC's income from a Master National is the application fee (nominal) and the recording fee which is $3.50 per dog. The Master National Retriever Club pays these fees. Owners pay Entry Express their $4.50 handling fee.

With an entry fee of $350, it is the MNRC who gets the lion's share of the income, not AKC.

 

[Hunt'EmUp]

I like DoubleHaul's idea! "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.

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-pass (it would be stupid not to).

 

[Jennifer Henion]

Here's some math:

My young dog has a chance at getting 6 or 7 Master passes in time to qualify for the West Coast MN next year. If we do, we'll go and because of the MN being held in my region, we're going to try like heck and spend the entry fees and travel time to try and qualify. But I'm sure as heck NOT going to make the effort for the MNs in the other 3 regions.
Summary: I'll only spend the money once every four years.

If there was a regional MN every year, I'd spend the money every year to make the effort to qualify. And if we happened to pass the regional, I'd probably feel special and spend the money to go the National at least 3 times. Summary: That's four times the amount of money for the MNRC, local clubs and AKC.

 

[jacduck]

After reading about half so far all I can say is "Follow the money" and you might find that is the bottom line. Not the dogs, not the amateur handler nor the pro. All about bucks. I have seen this in too many situations in my lifetime and here we go again.

If I had a vote it would be a regional that would be open to any MH titled dog bypassing the 5 of 7 or 6 or 8 or whatever. Tougher than the weekly event. That would eliminate the pros bringing 14 dogs to the national because some would be dropped and keep single dog owner/handlers on an even field. Also would make owners decide if they wanted to go to the Master Nat.

In summary, your MH would be able to go to the regional every year because of the MH title. Just like the NCAA basketball stuff, a tourni system. But have it done before the opening of hunting seasons!!!!! Not in the middle of the upnorth seasons.

 

[tracyw]

As far as I know, AKC's income from a Master National is the application fee (nominal) and the recording fee which is $3.50 per dog. The Master National Retriever Club pays these fees. Owners pay Entry Express their $4.50 handling fee.

With an entry fee of $350, it is the MNRC who gets the lion's share of the income, not AKC.

Helen, the AKC does make money off of dogs running their tests. I don't know how much but with the shear numbers, they are making money. If 700 dogs run (at a minimum) 6 AKC master test each to qualify to run the MN, then 4200 x what the akc makes per dog (even at $3.50 per dog, they make $14,700) is a good bit of money!

 

[msdaisey]

Maryland allows discussions now???? Things must have really changed . . . lol

 

[Wayne Nutt]

How is the proposal either approved or disapproved? Who votes?

 

[cpmm665]

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.

 

[lbbuckler]

Clubs that are members of the master national vote

 

[DoubleHaul]

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.

 

[knash3]

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...

 

[Eric Johnson]

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.

 

[PalouseDogs]

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.

 

[roseberry]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thomas D]

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.

 

[helencalif]

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.

 

[Karen Klotthor]

Just press the EASY button.

MNRC=Owner/Handler

Done

Don't make stuff harder than it is regards
Bubba

++++++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