The ongoing MH entry fiasco

downbirds · Jan 18, 2015

Wild idea, say it's a 60 dog limit. as many dogs as want sign up. Then it closes on a Monday four weeks out. EE does a random shuffle like they do in FT's, then Tues they use the closing Dow number, like FT's, and that is the first dog and the first 60 are in. I know it isn't perfect, some may have one dog get in but not their other but all are on a level playing field to get in and no human influence involved.

captainjack · Jan 18, 2015

downbirds said:
Wild idea, say it's a 60 dog limit. as many dogs as want sign up. Then it closes on a Monday four weeks out. EE does a random shuffle like they do in FT's, then Tues they use the closing Dow number, like FT's, and that is the first dog and the first 60 are in. I know it isn't perfect, some may have one dog get in but not their other but all are on a level playing field to get in and no human influence involved.

I proposed this (blind draw) on about page 2. I don't think the people making all the noise would submit to that even though it is the only thing that is actually fair to all when there aren't enough slots for everyone.

Thomas D · Jan 18, 2015

2 series and raise to 90 dog limit.

Karen Klotthor · Jan 19, 2015

SWIPER said:
Simple answers, ALL Test entries open at 8:00 pm CST, No VIP entry for pro's and every owner enters their own dog or dogs and everyone has a fair chance to enter their dog or dogs. If a test opens and closes in 15 mins. everyone had the same chance to enter. Move to the next test.

I have said this same thing before. Make it fair to everyone, Dog owner must enter dog, not handler. That way one or 2 dogs at the most will be entered at once. All fees are to be paid up front.

Thomas D · Jan 19, 2015

What if a pro is part owner of 20 dogs?

fuchsr · Jan 20, 2015

Which, by the way, is the system used to control entries in AKC tracking events. Similar problems: small clubs, tests need a lot of land. Typically only enough space for 4 or 5 tracks but often 15 or more entries.

captainjack · Jan 20, 2015

fuchsr said:
Which, by the way, is the system used to control entries in AKC tracking events. Similar problems: small clubs, tests need a lot of land. Typically only enough space for 4 or 5 tracks but often 15 or more entries.

What is the system? Blind draws, owner enters their own dogs?, ...

Karen Klotthor · Jan 20, 2015

Thomas D said:
What if a pro is part owner of 20 dogs?

He can enter them but he needs to pay than and there not VIP program. We have to tie our money up so they should to.

JS · Jan 20, 2015

All the random draws, limits on entering dogs with one click, standardized openings, etc., etc., etc., will make things a little more fair. And "fair" is a good thing.

But in the end, there will still be the same number of folks who didn't get entered. Fair or not, all you are accomplishing is satisfying some and shifting the complaints to a different group. That may be an improvement, especially in the view of those now complaining, but is that all we want to accomplish?

Since we're all dreaming ... as if any of this stuff will actually happen ... why aren't we dreaming up ways to solve the real problem. Like ways to provide more Master test opportunities; creating more tests.

* requiring a club to offer one flight per year that is NOT a MN qualifier for every flight they offer that is a MN qualifier.

* separating Master tests for titled dogs from those for untitled dogs.

If we tried hard enough brainstorming solutions that would provide more "slots" ... and giving the clubs some relief from some of the restrictions they now have, to help make that possible ... we might come up with some ideas for long term improvement in the system.

JS

Swampcollie · Jan 20, 2015

* separating Master tests for titled dogs from those for untitled dogs.

Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.

The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.

Nate_C · Jan 20, 2015

Swampcollie said:
Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.

The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.

I think that would be a cool idea. Have a MH and MHCH. MHCH would require 4 passes if already a MH. 2 passes out of 4 would be what gets you into the MN. And make them hard. Require a Quad, at double blind....ect..... So that most Clubs would have JR, SR, MH, MHCH.

JS · Jan 20, 2015

Swampcollie said:
Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.

The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.

Nate_C said:
I think that would be a cool idea. Have a MH and MHCH. MHCH would require 4 passes if already a MH. 2 passes out of 4 would be what gets you into the MN. And make them hard. Require a Quad, at double blind....ect..... So that most Clubs would have JR, SR, MH, MHCH.

LVL ... Where are you!?!?!?!?!?

If you know LVL, ur too old to vote. ;-)

JS

Swampcollie · Jan 20, 2015

JS said:
LVL ... Where are you!?!?!?!?!?

If you know LVL, ur too old to vote. ;-)

JS

I must be right there with Methuselah.;-)

DoubleHaul · Jan 20, 2015

Swampcollie said:
Perhaps it's time to follow other performance venues and offer another class of Master test. (Similar to the OTCH program.) This class would be open to titled master dogs and they would be in pursuit of placements and points on the way to earning a championship title MHCH. This could free up space in the regular master tests for dogs who are seeking their MH title and give those seeking something else to do with their dogs a new challenge to face.

The Master National could then set a more cut and dried criteria for qualifying for the national event (Points/Placements) and get their numbers under control.

This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.

I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.

Moose Mtn · Jan 20, 2015

I do think the situation is sad... We have a sport that is growing and expanding.. People WANT to enter and cant do so:

I do think Clubs need to become more vocal.. Express their needs to the public. For one of the Clubs I am a member of, the limitiations are hands down Help. We need more help to pull these tests off. But instead of just asking our membership to volunteer... I think if we have a pro with lots of dogs entered.. it only makes sense to call that pro up, explain that the club needs help, and suggest that The pro bring a bird boy, shooter or whatever is needed.

I am also in favor of raising the costs if that is the limiting factor. Lets face it, Some super nice venues have a high cost to use that facility for a hunt test... I see no reason why entry fees cannot reflect that.

JS · Jan 20, 2015

Moose Mtn said:
I do think the situation is sad... We have a sport that is growing and expanding.. People WANT to enter and cant do so:

I do think Clubs need to become more vocal.. Express their needs to the public. For one of the Clubs I am a member of, the limitiations are hands down Help. We need more help to pull these tests off. But instead of just asking our membership to volunteer... I think if we have a pro with lots of dogs entered.. it only makes sense to call that pro up, explain that the club needs help, and suggest that The pro bring a bird boy, shooter or whatever is needed.

I am also in favor of raising the costs if that is the limiting factor. Lets face it, Some super nice venues have a high cost to use that facility for a hunt test... I see no reason why entry fees cannot reflect that.

Has anyone ever asked them? Formally?

I know some already do help out on their own. I think more would if they were leaned on just a little. After all, they have an interest in the future of the game, maybe more so than the rest of us.

In Field Trials, most pros are more than willing to routinely provide help.

JS

Terry Britton · Jan 20, 2015

DoubleHaul said:
This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.

I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.

A new level of realistic hunt test would be fun. 400 yard marks on live flyer quail for land marks. Utilize dove and quail on land blinds. Maybe utilizing magnum geese and teal size ducks on water marks. Just include stuff that I have had my previous dog do on real hunts.

Swampcollie · Jan 20, 2015

JS said:
Has anyone ever asked them? Formally?

Actually yes we have asked in the past and there was no help forthcoming from the Pro's. We've had far more success in having our amateur members hire there own bird boys and bring them to work at a test.

Nate_C · Jan 20, 2015

DoubleHaul said:
This would certainly be one way for the MNRC to get its numbers under control, to the extent that it sincerely wants to do so.

I think that the same problem for the weekend HT person would end up being essentially the same. The new class of MH test would be way more popular than the regular MH test, just like there are more MH running now than dogs yet to qualify. Clubs would allocate resources to this test and take them away from the other, reducing the slots available to the yet to title folks. They would be right back here whining about not being able to get in to any tests to get the MH on their dog, since those tests will become more scarce than judges seminars.

That is why you would need to make the passes lower. a MH with 2 passes would be plenty I think.

mjh345 · Jan 20, 2015

captainjack said:
I proposed this (blind draw) on about page 2. I don't think the people making all the noise would submit to that even though it is the only thing that is actually fair to all when there aren't enough slots for everyone.

Once again Captain jacks off on his facts.
You have claimed that EE is fairer than any thing else
You claimed that your post 41 was the definitive answer to this issue, and taunted that no one could refute your post 41, or would accept a random draw.
Below is my post 91 rebuttal to your post 41 {which is quoted in red}

Glen you aren't that obtuse. Your friendship with David may be clouding your ability to see facts. What you fail to see is that I'm not opposed to EE. Quite the contrary, I love the concept of it. My first FC-AFC dog was in the seventies, so I have much experience with the old way. EE was a life saver, and huge boon to FT secretaries and clubs. However there is an inherent unfairness in the VIP program which needs to be rectified.

Here is your precious post 41 {in red} that I haven't responded to because it is so obviously a better option than what Joe newcomer is stuck with now

So, I have the fix. It would take care of all of your objections and level tbe playing field, no discrimination, etc that everyone is harping about. But. Before I give you the solution, let me just state this, I don't believe for one second that anyone really wants a level playing field, I think the folks complaining about the fast sell outs just want to get their own dogs entered.

So here is your chance to prove me wrong, and it can start with TRC's 4 master flight paper entry test...

1. Accept an unlimited number of entries.

2. After the event is closed, let's assume you get 300 entries for 240 (60 x 4) slots.

3. Now hold a public (yes public so no picking your buddies) draw and randomly select the 240 dogs who will get in.

There you go, this is the only way (other than using EE, of course) to ensure that everyone has an equal shot at getting into a test. And it couldn't bemore simple or fair.

Make it happen TRC.

In your post 41 solution Joe newcomer { AND EVERYBODY!!!!} has an equal chance of getting entered/ 240/300 = 80%

With the two inherent unfairness factors Joe newcomer deals with now his chances dwindle towards 0%

Inequity #1; If the test opens and fills before he even knows about it then his chances are in fact 0%

Inequity #2 If he manages to be online at the time the test opens, but is not a VIP member then by the time he enters his info most of if not all of the slots could be taken by VIP members who can enter as many dogs as they like instantaneously

So tell me Glen what is a fairer option for all, and a better option for Joe Newcomer the 80% chance your post 41 gives everybody or the present situation where some EE VIP's have a 100% chance of entering as many as they like, which leaves Joes chances at or near 0%

You have yet to address my rebuttal to your supposed "FIX" of post 41.
Instead you sent me an outrageous PM in which you called me a Jack ass a few times as well as a dumb ass and a worthless piece of ****. You stated that David didn't need you to fight his battles. You also guaranteed me that if you see me in person that you would hurt me while you were wearing a skirt. While most of your rant was aimed at me, in fairness you did also manage to insult the entire HT community by calling them crying babies and dumb asses
That was quite revealing as to your class, but failed to address the MH entry issues of this thread.
Although you chastised me to "stick to the topic on the forum you worthless POS"; you must realize that this thread was started by me. As such I framed the topics of the thread, which is FAIRNESS; not whether everybody should just run FT's. After all Glen likes FT's better than HT's!!! Or whether you could wave a magic wand and magically increase finite resources & supply thereby magically eliminating the problem,........ or anything else.

At first I assumed you realized your post 41 wasn't the panacea or "FIX" you claimed it to be, so you would just go away and leave the discussion to those more rational than you. But alas that didn't happen as you have since made a dozen or so posts on this thread, that are consistent in their failure to address the rebuttal I offered above or the fairness issue of the VIP program and heads up as to opening times.
You keep claiming that nobody would submit to a blind draw idea. Is your reading comprehension so poor that you don't realize that everyone who has responded has stated that they would welcome that equal chance for all over the biased system we now have?
If you can't stick to the topic why don't you keep sticking up for David on the EE thread. Better still why don't you get David to come on and answer some questions? Or do as you did last year when you dramatically announced that you were leaving RTF. You acted like a hurt, spoiled child who took his ball and went home. I now understand why so many were glad to see you go. Rest assured we can get along just fine without you

Although I am not one to give fashion advice, particularly to a possible cross dresser, I would think that you may be better served by wearing culottes or a skort when we meet. In view of your delicate sensibilities, I could envision you getting quite embarrassed if your doughy thighs and soiled panties might get exposed while you attempted to hurt me

The ongoing MH entry fiasco

downbirds

captainjack

Thomas D

Karen Klotthor

Thomas D

fuchsr

captainjack

Karen Klotthor

JS

Swampcollie

Nate_C

JS

Swampcollie

DoubleHaul

Moose Mtn

JS

Terry Britton

Swampcollie

Nate_C

mjh345

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities