Some interesting proposals being put out there by MNRC to control entries.
MNRC website
Thomas D
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Joined
·
341 Posts
Here is the link.
http://masternational.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/club-notice-mnrc-annual-meeting/
Pattie
http://masternational.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/club-notice-mnrc-annual-meeting/
Pattie
Joined
·
720 Posts
How do they judges get nominated?
Now must be 8 pt judge, have RAN ( not passed) a dog in MN and be approved by board. They call you, you say Yes or no. List goes out to clubs clubs vote (various methods) and the top 3-4 in each zone is on final ballot to be voted on by clubs at each yrs MN. 2-3 per zone are selected for the next yrs MN. I think I got it all.
Joined
·
6,293 Posts
Tom, if someone brought it up, such a proposal would be crushed and the proponent would be ostracized. I doubt anyone has that kind of intestinal fortitude.-Paul
You have to pass it to find out what's in it
Great way to do it. In some clubs all members get to vote. In others the BOD decides who to vote for. Remember there are two tiers of voting. First goes to all clubs. Second (final) is done at MN meeting from the ones voted in by the clubs.
Joined
·
341 Posts
Hi Tom, when I took over the secretary position years ago for my club, I did what ever I could to involve our entire membership so everyone has a say.
I just started using survey monkey. It's great and very easy to use. When voting closes I simply use Snippet to take a capture of the result so the membership knows exactly what the out come is.
Pattie
I just started using survey monkey. It's great and very easy to use. When voting closes I simply use Snippet to take a capture of the result so the membership knows exactly what the out come is.
Pattie
Joined
·
245 Posts
Sorry to disagree, Richard. It seem to me that Option A....only allowing 4 flights of 125 dogs per flight... would DRASTICALLY decrease the number of local hunt entries.
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
The proposals are far reaching and constitute a serious response to the MNRC's exponential growth rate over the past few years. Agree that option A would likely reduce the number of folks trying to Q for the MN if their pro can't guarantee they'd get in. None of the proposals provide a perfect solution as there is no "perfect." Those that are interested in solutions should engage their clubs in discussion and response. Those that would rather just toss rocks from the outside, carry on.
Bob, at the risk of being chastised for not being on board with what the MN is doing, please explain how A would reduce weekend test entries.
Joined
·
680 Posts
Let's look at this from another perspective and discuss the additional pros and cons of each strategy.
A -
Pro:
Encourages amateur involvement if the retriever isn't #1 or #2 on a pro's truck
Con:
Encourages everyone that can take get a shingle on a truck to carry dogs to the National if the owner can't get away from work.
B-
Pro:
X (?)
Con:
Encourages amateurs to hire professional trainers to campaign their dogs due to work and family commitments
C-
Pros:
Additional title opportunity promotes growth within the sport
Cons:
Qualifying definition must be clearly defined. If a pro handles the retriever for 1 pass, is it amateur qualified?
Judging pool will significantly decrease due to amateurs trying to qualify instead of letting pro X handle while they judge
How do we guarantee that "standard creep" doesn't happen to the weekend tests once a new standard evolves?
D-
Pros:
Overall appealing
I'll add a option E that was axed before the electrons made it to the screen.
Add 2 additional flights
Set up 6 series
Judges stay with series and dogs rotate.
Callbacks are tabulated electronically based on overall averages
Pros:
Allows everyone to run 6 series
Flight size stays around 100 dogs
No waiting for callbacks or stakes to move
Less traffic on the grounds
Removes judging bias and offers an opportunity to review sheets if a clerical error has been made
Cons:
Resembles the "other" organization
Requires additional judges
Requires some additional workers
A -
Pro:
Encourages amateur involvement if the retriever isn't #1 or #2 on a pro's truck
Con:
Encourages everyone that can take get a shingle on a truck to carry dogs to the National if the owner can't get away from work.
B-
Pro:
X (?)
Con:
Encourages amateurs to hire professional trainers to campaign their dogs due to work and family commitments
C-
Pros:
Additional title opportunity promotes growth within the sport
Cons:
Qualifying definition must be clearly defined. If a pro handles the retriever for 1 pass, is it amateur qualified?
Judging pool will significantly decrease due to amateurs trying to qualify instead of letting pro X handle while they judge
How do we guarantee that "standard creep" doesn't happen to the weekend tests once a new standard evolves?
D-
Pros:
Overall appealing
I'll add a option E that was axed before the electrons made it to the screen.
Add 2 additional flights
Set up 6 series
Judges stay with series and dogs rotate.
Callbacks are tabulated electronically based on overall averages
Pros:
Allows everyone to run 6 series
Flight size stays around 100 dogs
No waiting for callbacks or stakes to move
Less traffic on the grounds
Removes judging bias and offers an opportunity to review sheets if a clerical error has been made
Cons:
Resembles the "other" organization
Requires additional judges
Requires some additional workers
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
