The Master National Proposals to be voted on this year can be found here:
http://www.masternational.com/event/2009JudgeSlateAmendments.pdf
http://www.masternational.com/event/2009JudgeSlateAmendments.pdf
Master National Proposals
Lady Duck Hunter
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Joined
·
369 Posts
It is you and your dog against test. Not you against the pros. Go and have fun. Learn what you can. It will make a better handler. That is what it takes to pass the big test.
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
yeah thats dumb - how can any of us know all the dog's names, and many call names are totally different than anything in their formal name anyway.
we need owner/handler names too!
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
Vicki - i dont think i saw it - when is the vote on the proposals? if i missed it sorry, just a lot of posts here....
Joined
·
273 Posts
Look at http://www.masternational.com/news/2009AnnualMeetingNotice.doc
and you will see when the delegate meeting occurs (The Annual Meeting of the Master National Retriever Club will be held at the American Legion Hall, Giddings, TX on Saturday, October 24, at 2:30 PM.). Only approved delegates (1 per MN member club) or their authorized proxies are allowed to vote at the meeting.
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Joined
·
788 Posts
Can anybody provide a little more background on the rationale for changing the 5 of 7 or 8 passes in total requirement to 6 passes with 1 at the hands of the owner?
Is this propsed modification expected to result in fewer qualified dogs and thereby fewer entries at the MN? It seems to be a return to the way things were before the entry requirments changed in 2006 (except for the 1 owner pass). If the intent is really to promote more owner involvement, what is to prevent owners from adding their pro as a co-owner?
The whole pro vs. amateur argument is really a non-issue in my mind. It's supposed to be about the dog, not the handler. A talented and well trained dog should be able to get through the test, regardless of who is running it. Of course a pro has more opportunities to come to line and may have an advantage over an amateur with one dog, but that's no different than the average weekend test.
Dan
Is this propsed modification expected to result in fewer qualified dogs and thereby fewer entries at the MN? It seems to be a return to the way things were before the entry requirments changed in 2006 (except for the 1 owner pass). If the intent is really to promote more owner involvement, what is to prevent owners from adding their pro as a co-owner?
The whole pro vs. amateur argument is really a non-issue in my mind. It's supposed to be about the dog, not the handler. A talented and well trained dog should be able to get through the test, regardless of who is running it. Of course a pro has more opportunities to come to line and may have an advantage over an amateur with one dog, but that's no different than the average weekend test.
Dan
Joined
·
499 Posts
How about 5 passes if an owner handles their dog throughout the year and six if someone else (aka Pro. friend, etc.) does?
Back to the same problem and solution: Make the pro a co owner and you have satisfied the rule.
Joined
·
178 Posts
Well, here we GROW again.
My prediction is that we'll be looking at 700 qualified dogs in 2011. What will the MN and AKC do with that??
I oppose this years proposal ie., one owner/pass. In my opinion, just another way to prevent good dog/s from attending, and doesn't do anything to effectively reduce numbers.
If the MN and AKC wanted to whittle down the entries, how about requiring 5 for 5, 6 for 6, or 7 for 7??? That would work...............
Just my dime...see you all in Texas
Mike Berube
My prediction is that we'll be looking at 700 qualified dogs in 2011. What will the MN and AKC do with that??
I oppose this years proposal ie., one owner/pass. In my opinion, just another way to prevent good dog/s from attending, and doesn't do anything to effectively reduce numbers.
If the MN and AKC wanted to whittle down the entries, how about requiring 5 for 5, 6 for 6, or 7 for 7??? That would work...............
Just my dime...see you all in Texas
Mike Berube
Maybe we could take a page out of the playbook of MLB and the NFL: When both expanded their numbers they went to the league championship round to get to the teams for the world series and super bowl.
Maybe regional MN's. The qualifiers from which would go to the "big dance".
Maybe regional MN's. The qualifiers from which would go to the "big dance".
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Not all dogs that qualify will attend, cost, location and many other factors will determine the number that go. I have never attended one but pretty much can gather the complex nature of this beast.
Going to two MN a year might help reduce the numbers, people won't be flocking to just one, you could run double the numbers thru with two events, just rotate the locations and dates. Southern people will run in the Spring while northern people will run in the Fall.
Going to two MN a year might help reduce the numbers, people won't be flocking to just one, you could run double the numbers thru with two events, just rotate the locations and dates. Southern people will run in the Spring while northern people will run in the Fall.
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
i like this idea. easy enough to disallow pro's as co-owners, just require the non-pro to be the handler. but it probably should be more like 6 for owners and 8 for pros, they tend to travel a lot further and tun more tests than the typical owner/handler.
i wish i knew the direction this is going. i'd like to try a master's test or 2 this fall, but right now it makes better sense to just keep training and come spring i have a much better chance of success. i'd hate to burn a non-pass just for experience/training purposes if the 5 of first 7 stands; but if its a total of 6, i'd be making donations to several clubs and maybe picking up a pass or 2.
Joined
·
3,346 Posts
If anything passes it wouldn't go into effect for the 2010 MN because the qualification period has already started.
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Although two events might seem like a good solution, one has to realize that it would require another hosting club and 4 additional judges each year. We are hosting the event this year and the planning and work involved is more than anyone can imagine. It is NOT a two weekend event.
The judges use two weeks of their time to judge (how many of us would use two weeks of vacation?). It also requires that club members be available for 2 weeks and many hours prior to event coming to the area. Our club gave up our normal weekend event to host the 2009 MN and this was decided 2 years ago. How many clubs are willing to do that every year? You would have to find 2 clubs each year to do so and they would have to commit 2 years in advance...
As far as requiring owners to handle their dogs - who is responsible to verify and record that information? The handler can be in the catalog but who will make sure that the catalog is correct? I am the handler for my dog in Entry Express but who will note that I really handled my dog? Additionally, if reducing numbers is the idea then perhaps the requirement should be 5 out of 5 with no passes allowed from the prior year's event. It would be pretty cut and dry - you enter 5 events, no scratches without a vet excuse and you pass all of them. No scratching at the event after the test has been revealed, etc...(Then we could really see some judge shopping!)
The judges use two weeks of their time to judge (how many of us would use two weeks of vacation?). It also requires that club members be available for 2 weeks and many hours prior to event coming to the area. Our club gave up our normal weekend event to host the 2009 MN and this was decided 2 years ago. How many clubs are willing to do that every year? You would have to find 2 clubs each year to do so and they would have to commit 2 years in advance...
As far as requiring owners to handle their dogs - who is responsible to verify and record that information? The handler can be in the catalog but who will make sure that the catalog is correct? I am the handler for my dog in Entry Express but who will note that I really handled my dog? Additionally, if reducing numbers is the idea then perhaps the requirement should be 5 out of 5 with no passes allowed from the prior year's event. It would be pretty cut and dry - you enter 5 events, no scratches without a vet excuse and you pass all of them. No scratching at the event after the test has been revealed, etc...(Then we could really see some judge shopping!)
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
I'm sure that hosting a MN is an unbelievable amount of work for a club but if the HRC can put the Grand twice a year and find clubs to host it I would think the MN could do the same. As far as clubs verifying that an owner actually handled their dog you could always have the judges verify ID's. Pull out your drivers licenses and the judges check off a box on the dogs score sheet who actually handled the dog.
Joined
·
788 Posts
In addition, I would venture to say that holding several "qualifying" or "regional" events plus the "Big Dance" event would result in more pro run dogs.
How many amateurs (other than you lucky retired SOB's) can afford to take that much time off work to run several week-long events? I know I couldn't.
Seems like that approach would limit the game further for amateurs that want to run their own dogs.
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
And then what? The HT secretary would have to go to his/her 4 catalogs that she/he maintains and correct every incorrect handler so that someone elsewhere could also record all handlers? It is afterall, the catalogs that are the documents of record. I doubt that this information is recorded anywhere now. And how would you verify who the owner really is?
That could be overwhelming when a club has 7 days from the event to get all of the information in to AKC. Additionally, most judges take their sheets with them so where would that info be recorded and verified...On the clipboard...On the judges sheets...on another form that AKC could care less about? That proposal is a MN proposal - not an AKC proposal...
As far as clubs go...please ask your club to host the MN when it comes to your region! Be sure to have grounds suitable, plenty of training grounds for the week before and all of the facilities and workers needed to plan and carry it off...
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
I like the regional idea. The amateurs would just hit the regionals and skip the big one if it was too much time or too far away. As it is, the typical amateur can qualify but it is tough to run except (if you are lucky) once every few years.
Finding clubs to run them would be the big issue, I think. I can't imagine the work that goes into a MN and a regional wouldn't be much better.
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Leave the Pros. out of the equation. It's a pass or fail event people.
Take out the Style and Perserv. sections and judge dogs on Marking and Trainability only. Add gun safety
Tightening up your judging to eliminate sloppiness.
Make the Master Dog top dog like it should.
:2c:
Sue
Take out the Style and Perserv. sections and judge dogs on Marking and Trainability only. Add gun safety
Tightening up your judging to eliminate sloppiness.
Make the Master Dog top dog like it should.
:2c:
Sue
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
