[Granddaddy]

Holding a master only event strategically the year that the mn was going to be near your area was an idea I put forth once. Seemed logical to me. Give our locals another chance at getting a pass if needed and a last minute chance for a test. Not to mention a good revenue boost. Then again, to quote the words of a not so famous big timer, "I don't know sh*t" (unless it was someone else's idea first of course) lol

Actually the master stake has the highest costs and lowest margin of all the hunt test stakes. If a club wants to gain some margin (I'm opposed to the use of "profit" related to non-profit clubs), they should be holding a double jr/sr along with their master stakes.

 

[Granddaddy]

Sometimes, to arrive at an answer to a problem one needs to ask some questions;

1. WHAT IF- the MNRC developed their own, seperate standard for the dogs meet in order to get a Plate?

2. WHAT IF- qualifying to go to the MN did NOT require ANY number of weekend passes?

3. WHAT IF- there were 4 regional qualifying tests, one in each region, judged to the proposed new MN standard and ALL MH titled dogs could enter up to all 4 if they needed to in order to pass one?

I believe these changes would solve a lot of the problems being experienced by a significant number of clubs at the weekend tests.

I believe these changes would significantly reduce the number of dogs qualified to run the MN. They would also raise the bar for those who pass the MN, making it even more prestigious. They would make the MNH title something that significantly fewer dogs
would attain, enhancing the prestige related to the accomplishment significantly.

one man's opinion.-Paul

Paul the rub with your suggestions is that it puts no money in the pocket of the AKC by eliminating the qualifying requirements, and at least at this point the MN wants AKC affiliation.

 

[Granddaddy]

That's typically true. Until you only have 30 JH dogs and 90+ MH level dogs. How exactly is holding a double JH with 30 dogs going to come out ahead?

Because you don't have double judge expense, or another way to look at it is that you have already paid the judges expenses on Saturday. You just have the jr & sr judges swap out on Sunday. While adding master flights you also have to add judges.

 

[Granddaddy]

Then again that depends on entries. In the last few years we have had an average of about 10 senior entries and maybe 17 junior while master was full for the most part. Bringing in judges for 10 senior dogs doesn't help the bottom line. The new rules regarding judges also does not help clubs in this situation.

Then have a double jr & sr - you've already paid for the judges..........we've always had margin on a double jr/sr with as few as 15 dogs. And, BTW, you will attract more jr/sr entrants with a double jr/sr. And you need to have an outlet for newcomers to come in...

 

[Granddaddy]

Wow a Master test in Colorado with a limit of 60 MH dogs closed 4 days after open. 4 Pros with 40 dogs and the rest are club members or local club members. Any club member snoozing on this one can not get in their own clubs tests ..... but at the same time we will need them to help out.

BTW, I do not have any issue with Pros .... I am just curious what dynamic has occurred in the past two years to drive this new change .... I know the AKC test number limit rule change and I also I heard from a good source a year ago that since HRC was limiting the number of dogs per handler (8), most pros decided to run more Master tests without limits per handler.

The dynamic was that clubs asked for the ability to limit master entries & this because the AKC was otherwise arbitrary that if a club didn't limit entries and the field reached 90 dogs, they were obligated by rule to immediately get a new set of judges. Many clubs found it very difficult (& not cost effective) to find another set of judges 10 days prior to the event so they opt for the limited field.